Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: Rework config space locking, add INTx masking services

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:04:15 +0100
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-04 09:45, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > [ Rebase of v1 over yesterday's linux-next ]
> > 
> > This series tries to heal the currently broken locking scheme
> > around PCI config space accesses.
> > 
> > We have an interface lock out access via sysfs, but that service
> > wrongly assumes it is only called by one instance at a time for
> > some device. So two loops doing
> > 
> > echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/<some-device>/reset
> > 
> > in parallel will trigger a kernel BUG at the moment.
> > 
> > Besides synchronizing with user space, we also need to manage config
> > space access of generic PCI drivers. They need to mask legacy
> > interrupt lines while the specific driver runs in user space or a
> > guest OS.
> > 
> > The approach taken here is provide mutex-like locking for general
> > access - which still requires a special mechanism due to
> > requirements of the IBM Power RAID SCSI driver. Furthermore, INTx
> > masking is now available via the PCI core and synchronized via the
> > internal pci_lock.
> > 
> > Jan Kiszka (3):
> >   pci: Rework config space blocking services
> >   pci: Introduce INTx check & mask API
> >   uio: Convert uio_generic_pci to new intx masking API
> > 
> >  drivers/pci/access.c          |   76 +++++++++++++++++----------
> >  drivers/pci/iov.c             |   12 ++--
> >  drivers/pci/pci.c             |  114
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/pci/pci.h             |    2 +
> > drivers/scsi/ipr.c            |   67 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> > drivers/scsi/ipr.h            |    1 +
> > drivers/uio/uio_pci_generic.c |   76 ++-------------------------
> > include/linux/pci.h           |   17 ++++-- 8 files changed, 248
> > insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I just received yet another request regarding the KVM feature that
> depends on this. What's the status of these patches? Were they merged
> into some staging tree already (didn't find any traces so far)?

Yeah I think it's ok now; I'll give it one more look and pull it into
-next.

Thanks,
Jesse