From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]
 helo=mail.free-electrons.com)
 by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1bEcP9-0007ij-Hc
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:04:48 +0000
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:04:24 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, dwmw2@infradead.org,
 computersforpeace@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
 john@phrozen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] MTD: xway: fix nand locking
Message-ID: <20160619150424.24207ab8@bbrezillon>
In-Reply-To: <b33bd2fb-4cf6-1acf-8022-fd76f3cf9f06@hauke-m.de>
References: <1466277252-13867-1-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de>
 <1466277252-13867-7-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de>
 <20160619144152.4ba4de77@bbrezillon> <576695D4.3000108@nod.at>
 <b33bd2fb-4cf6-1acf-8022-fd76f3cf9f06@hauke-m.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:56:03 +0200
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> wrote:

> On 06/19/2016 02:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am 19.06.2016 um 14:41 schrieb Boris Brezillon:  
> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:14:10 +0200
> >> Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> From: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
> >>>
> >>> The external Bus Unit (EBU) can control different flash devices, but
> >>> these NAND flash commands have to be atomic and should not be
> >>> interrupted in between. Lock the EBU from the beginning of the command
> >>> till the end by moving the lock to the chip select.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/mtd/nand/xway_nand.c | 20 ++++----------------
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/xway_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/xway_nand.c
> >>> index 1511bdb..064ee41 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/xway_nand.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/xway_nand.c
> >>> @@ -94,13 +94,16 @@ static void xway_reset_chip(struct nand_chip *chip)
> >>>  
> >>>  static void xway_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
> >>>  {
> >>> +	static unsigned long csflags;  
> > 
> > Why is csflags static? AFAICT this is racy then...  
> 
> Because the lock is taken when the chip is selected and it is unlocked
> when the chip select is deactivated again. This should be part of the
> private driver struct.

static here means that you have a single instance for all callers. This
is working fine because you have a lock at the NAND core level, and you
only have a single controller, but you definitely don't want to rely on
that in the long run.

In any case, using a static variable to save irqflags sounds like a
bad idea. This should always be saved on the stack to limit the time
spent in spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestored() critical
sections.
Which bring us back to my first question: are you sure you want to
disable irqs for such a long/unbounded time?