From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46314 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726950AbfFFU2k (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:28:40 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x56KQx2s054141 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:28:39 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sy79xy76p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:28:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 21:28:37 +0100 From: Eric Farman Subject: [PATCH v2 1/9] s390/cio: Squash cp_free() and cp_unpin_free() Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:28:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190606202831.44135-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190606202831.44135-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20190606202831.44135-2-farman@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Cornelia Huck , Farhan Ali Cc: Halil Pasic , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Eric Farman The routine cp_free() does nothing but call cp_unpin_free(), and while most places call cp_free() there is one caller of cp_unpin_free() used when the cp is guaranteed to have not been marked initialized. This seems like a dubious way to make a distinction, so let's combine these routines and make cp_free() do all the work. Signed-off-by: Eric Farman --- The RFC version of this patch received r-b's from Farhan [1] and Pierre [2]. This patch is almost identical to that one, but I opted to not include those tags because of the cp->initialized check that now has an impact here. I still think this patch makes sense, but want them (well, Farhan) to have a chance to look it over since it's been six or seven months. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/22310411/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/22317927/ --- drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 36 +++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c index f73cfcfdd032..47cd7f94f42f 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c @@ -412,23 +412,6 @@ static void ccwchain_cda_free(struct ccwchain *chain, int idx) kfree((void *)(u64)ccw->cda); } -/* Unpin the pages then free the memory resources. */ -static void cp_unpin_free(struct channel_program *cp) -{ - struct ccwchain *chain, *temp; - int i; - - cp->initialized = false; - list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, temp, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) { - for (i = 0; i < chain->ch_len; i++) { - pfn_array_table_unpin_free(chain->ch_pat + i, - cp->mdev); - ccwchain_cda_free(chain, i); - } - ccwchain_free(chain); - } -} - /** * ccwchain_calc_length - calculate the length of the ccw chain. * @iova: guest physical address of the target ccw chain @@ -796,7 +779,7 @@ int cp_init(struct channel_program *cp, struct device *mdev, union orb *orb) /* Now loop for its TICs. */ ret = ccwchain_loop_tic(chain, cp); if (ret) - cp_unpin_free(cp); + cp_free(cp); /* It is safe to force: if not set but idals used * ccwchain_calc_length returns an error. */ @@ -819,8 +802,21 @@ int cp_init(struct channel_program *cp, struct device *mdev, union orb *orb) */ void cp_free(struct channel_program *cp) { - if (cp->initialized) - cp_unpin_free(cp); + struct ccwchain *chain, *temp; + int i; + + if (!cp->initialized) + return; + + cp->initialized = false; + list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, temp, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) { + for (i = 0; i < chain->ch_len; i++) { + pfn_array_table_unpin_free(chain->ch_pat + i, + cp->mdev); + ccwchain_cda_free(chain, i); + } + ccwchain_free(chain); + } } /** -- 2.17.1