From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E72E51E5B70 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769721405; cv=none; b=NiFO8Kye4dPK883lwy2gvCxMT0L8dEZkeGak8/pLkbWw0W/hR7C4BLUhVNNW828iTW6MT4P0452gICFQlqJtWRaf3Cbd7f/Cb04Vpogk9fXQiqXff9pXdeEn3mPF4VbdWuejkmBu8itqFMte/2ZI7X7/APNk1IoHlWNwpWbMiTc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769721405; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vpE+nMEzLoj/TFLjIIK0FkWP9n94RH5367GYfFV9nkk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o7ZARhB9331kz96jc00K3df7cbngnQ6Q0BCFyc0NDh/9gnV2BzoQTNXkfM1UvRyW23GeEdYvnOT6WGd+dJx2NoKwgfNqIi0xI9VMP34Dd2oZaYMdgj2FXfADdV4/w5JP8ORsywjY5pv29/8AHDgzqUqx92LYu8S4NQzsb1816ho= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=n9vpu0h1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="n9vpu0h1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10658C4CEF7; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769721404; bh=vpE+nMEzLoj/TFLjIIK0FkWP9n94RH5367GYfFV9nkk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=n9vpu0h1Xp0Y4UwnBLMKClHy9yrdnTceC+uA8Q63WwfLBiT4h8YkKQhC2uVpOUcBP J+mdrJ/QKE0GvaceDJLNf9TezzBr6U2rxrUEyGoTf8uYHTig0PyH8FR+jjAEk3g6AT NALDCaw8gtTCAgkq4sNzKrAl0DEPNTlMrSeqkdFxihbc+UQfeU4BqSwTem46q9DRZU 3FY+6OR/YAMJkOa+S/Cjs3yvQRQLVoQEw7+T2Swkim6EpawmV7C2SsVEjsx67MCfFb 0X5u0pqfdsz7oBEo6IAbrMMgWr3gZBC63FNR/9wSmoHOvwnMam0W65yNQ8ILdG+Y3k qrVHcMN3GP5MA== Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:16:42 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Keith Busch , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, alex@shazbot.org, lukas@wunner.de, dan.j.williams@intel.com, guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: remove slot specific lock/unlock and save/restore Message-ID: References: <20260129160955.2637158-1-kbusch@meta.com> <20260129202750.GA476192@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260129202750.GA476192@bhelgaas> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 02:27:50PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > An alternate path would be to: > > - keep Jinhui's patch that fixes the pci_slot_trylock() error path > (same as your 1/1 patch) > > - apply your 2/2 patch [1] to fix pci_slot_lock(), > pci_slot_unlock(), and pci_slot_trylock() to lock the bridge > (after accounting for the mistaken merge) > > - finally, rebase *this* patch on top to remove the pci_slot_lock(), > pci_slot_unlock(), and pci_slot_trylock() that have just been > fixed > > The advantage would be that if there's any issue or objection to > completely removing pci_slot_lock() et al, we could drop or defer that > while still fixing the locking issues. Sounds good. Another bonus is we can be more cautious for stable backports since the first two are clear isolated bug fixes. I'll prepare a rebased version with the proposed sequence.