From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Riemer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/15] IB/srp: Fix race between srp_queuecommand() and srp_claim_req() Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:42:21 +0200 Message-ID: <51CDA0CD.6060504@profitbricks.com> References: <51CD856A.3010102@acm.org> <51CD8604.5010801@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51CD8604.5010801-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Roland Dreier , David Dillow , Vu Pham , linux-rdma List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 28.06.2013 14:48, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Avoid that srp_claim_command() can claim a command while > srp_queuecommand() is still busy queueing the same command. > Found this via source reading. Nice, that's much less re-acquiring of the target lock in error case in srp_queuecommand(). But if we have to change that many locations for srp_put_tx_iu() anyway, wouldn't it make sense to rename it into __srp_put_tx_iu() as well? Then we can also put a little description to it and it looks familiar compared to __srp_get_tx_iu(). The description could look like follows: /* * Return an IU and possible credit to the free pool * * Must be called with target->lock held to protect free_tx. */ I'm not sure if we still need that lockdep_assert_held() then. There is no other location with lock debugging in ib_srp. Cheers, Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html