From: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
Uladzislau Koshchanka <koshchanka@gmail.com>,
John Sanpe <sanpeqf@gmail.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
"wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
pstanner@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] lib, pci: unify generic pci_iounmap()
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:09:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e5d53e44709f7da1ba4b8f8a4687efcffdd6addb.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <05173886-444c-4bae-b1a5-d2b068e9c4a5@app.fastmail.com>
On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 14:50 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 14:39, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 13:38 +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>
> > > + */
> > > +#if defined(ARCH_WANTS_GENERIC_IOMEM_IS_IOPORT)
> > > +bool iomem_is_ioport(void __iomem *addr)
> > > {
> > > - IO_COND(addr, /* nothing */, iounmap(addr));
> > > + unsigned long port = (unsigned long __force)addr;
> > > +
> > > + if (port > PIO_OFFSET && port < PIO_RESERVED)
> >
> > by the way:
> > Reading that again my instinctive feeling would be that it should
> > be
> > port >= PIO_OFFSET.
> >
> > This is, however, the exactly copied logic from the IO_COND macro
> > in
> > lib/iomap.c. Is it possible that this macro contains a bug here?
>
> Right, I think that would make more sense, but there is no
> practical difference as long as I/O port 0 is always unused,
> which is at least true on x86 because of PCIBIOS_MIN_IO.
> Commit bb356ddb78b2 ("RISC-V: PCI: Avoid handing out address
> 0 to devices") describes how setting PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to 0
> caused other problems.
Ok, makes sense.
But should we then adjust iomem_is_ioport() in asm-generic/io.h, as
well, so that it matches IO_COND()'s behavior?
It currently does this:
uintptr_t start = (uintptr_t)PCI_IOBASE;
uintptr_t addr = (uintptr_t)addr_raw;
if (addr >= start && addr < start + IO_SPACE_LIMIT)
return true;
and if the architecture does not set PCI_IOBASE, then it's set per
default to 0, as well.
So we have two inconsistent definitons
>
> I would just leave the logic consistent with IO_COND here,
> or maybe use IO_COND() directly, like
>
> IO_COND(addr, return true, /* nothing */);
> return false;
I considered using it to increase consistency. However, I valued
improved readability more. Considering that the mid-term goal is to
move it to x86 anyways I'd like to leave it that way for now.
P.
>
> Arnd
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-04 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-04 12:38 [PATCH v3 0/5] Regather scattered PCI-Code Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 12:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] lib/pci_iomap.c: fix cleanup bugs in pci_iounmap() Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 13:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-12-04 12:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] lib: move pci_iomap.c to drivers/pci/ Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 13:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-12-04 12:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] lib: move pci-specific devres code " Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 12:38 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] pci: move devres code from pci.c to devres.c Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 12:38 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] lib, pci: unify generic pci_iounmap() Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 13:39 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-12-04 13:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-12-04 14:09 ` Philipp Stanner [this message]
2023-12-04 14:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-12-04 13:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-12-05 10:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-05 14:34 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-12-05 14:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e5d53e44709f7da1ba4b8f8a4687efcffdd6addb.camel@redhat.com \
--to=pstanner@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dakr@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=koshchanka@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=sanpeqf@gmail.com \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).