From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f51.google.com (mail-oa1-f51.google.com [209.85.160.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 659CD35CBD6 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769525173; cv=none; b=Qd3OdTqDO494qaDi/9SaUL7m5gjWnqHmiwwtKzkxZgEI+y57BZ1mt+4BedP5yMH2rI7AIL+WZk5sciBdLlrqcpusKE3cGRFAaqkA/9gefZArQkWF0PkVuX5fmqzbI8odsOrmn86HLKhxeVBcSrr9mEyvcarGZxkrUiRZynZz8j0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769525173; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fv2CQ15AU5d5Aod1Cu0Nr1aIgUDyc6KxS+DtPfjyvK8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cPJDOstfudpBzkZ+9w6VMco8hINjybbbA9ykICmMVvvF7vDoNnzX6G9uH8K+vjRFxq3BS9XUi1e6HwtAJa2K91e95Bcxm8FFjEx9Ed04sQZM4VLg8Ui96rkNO/MQ29TdA2nKHZFk+TybxMyPP39+Lp1j4xZZHsxqJineLSjRMjU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=minyard.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=minyard.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=minyard.net header.i=@minyard.net header.b=LxSP68+5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=minyard.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=minyard.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=minyard.net header.i=@minyard.net header.b="LxSP68+5" Received: by mail-oa1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-4044854464fso3118763fac.3 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=minyard.net; s=google; t=1769525171; x=1770129971; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fgGF8ctS0K4niRH9iziMpNUnP6faXj3JV6+BPJJ9b/E=; b=LxSP68+5kV9Jsbus+Khggt1nRD4AHryPunR6JHIjZHsuYg7RSC8yDMh3l1fXlMqTSX opUOLmsO9URHiDRg1Gm4K201W5muq1cpaY80Xb6QK4cVMsFWsESc7p2qXuIzk0S+uQqb AjpEJ77DK4rKlV0tiwodS3vZWTotqExyou/w4QSyQ80llPZhISZYtuotUaPFhZ2CxNxF XuSYU+PIms+DHchZ0QVO3EJ2rG+38w5DSpJ2YYThpnDbP1tfTGe90YrEC/p+TZ+2dmC6 i6keIhrCU6WBz+QEdQZRBNKavQlmkZOAh3fPWLeSQhhJxVTNJU0f8soa5wmUdp7VSBV5 3t/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1769525171; x=1770129971; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fgGF8ctS0K4niRH9iziMpNUnP6faXj3JV6+BPJJ9b/E=; b=N1jenD4PmUVemQ7f6fdawgpVKn1mQPMufjQSTqnacFG7XB1JlD6fGnPSi1tAgJkjEF 8UALuBWZivOfOlUPx3SMW10OD9X+GhKEGNs9xpRAWvqkpWJPEbBXzIzR99C9xKonNpPS +y3P2rXQnERy7K1mf8om7MSJhBoeVuDBhZJQwWg0bYz+Ita1EGPnAcAGbzBtqwA4IZdq YXXI8g4VRbjS69YWCYBlCbxjnIJQ2QRC+WES0qRQ2DEWceRphfkXfdJVxpeNK75dWSCm UPgyAZcvg5L4nVACxrVersHhpCKwoCdboMzSgazfmeKfw8jFZXBWfu3njcJ0GP1IIJUX D2Mw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXEUTG/O1//4xOEebU1pk2Y8HgqER0LbyfRkeFlUojgwI7aOvhBifuuuuXSEkiqKC1xcg5k@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyZIHXfbUaDyFuEGEkPi6WZumAvuGmmQSuKV1ni2QhWEPfkPuRU CusL95Hlam5A+NJukRzbrl0KJV9v71hLnTmtlBszz8jRXf+jree8dgEj7z4IGVMyNi0= X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aKiDMHarute2Ds1q04P16v7J6MAHaUEuNgjoxG5KFd9BuD9g7FtSopVlbYxi1O +lJ94IMuUOPoiNVvz2kR+/eYkosF/LsvDTkj3fY0FfpXhzi0yPydYSx2HWaFp6gKeXuh3egNiCt vlmCxV+d5al1AYhgxd4xeXkCnEp18BVnsu09XhS2F0wKA+advd8AC7tLL59aNrefGyKjItnSgya WxgEg4tY/bKjnEK1HpV7mH+13ajqYpfxklbS3m8Ji3iSc5SWG15G1GsqhE7KJS2P0Oj6Xg3YxOB TGxXKByNWORaC4cCAg69xpDZ4ACwzqzK5xRAy6TXhO/VuA+dutLhbrzMp29rZJrWN6LPLvIBeY2 jPQ8AiwNv1bGLq73CiohFhqL5BsdfMLY/UHlL9+fMELNSc5XODNI4Cctdhk9x+eK2D7u0S4z3On +pdI3EfO3Hd70l1HKwT+8D6Aa4pcOSBT9uogY7SWMUl04Qmy+IurRY1tWK+i1AIPazm55STolcz TUDZWE3mfhBcw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3846:b0:349:de3c:bfc5 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-4093fc81ca3mr1148844fac.7.1769525171085; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.minyard.net ([2001:470:b8f6:1b:a1a5:d807:e7a1:53eb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 586e51a60fabf-408af7ff54dsm9092668fac.1.2026.01.27.06.46.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:46:06 -0600 From: Corey Minyard To: Breno Leitao Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipmi: Consolidate the run to completion checking for xmit msgs lock Message-ID: Reply-To: corey@minyard.net References: <20260127-ipmi-v1-0-ba5cc90f516f@debian.org> <20260127135917.1597762-1-corey@minyard.net> <20260127135917.1597762-3-corey@minyard.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:41:48AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:54:40AM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > > It made things hard to read, move the check to a function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard > > --- > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > index a590a67294e2..030828cdb778 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > @@ -602,6 +602,20 @@ static int __ipmi_bmc_register(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > static int __scan_channels(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > struct ipmi_device_id *id, bool rescan); > > > > +static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion, > > + unsigned long *flags) > > +{ > > + if (!run_to_completion) > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > > +} > > I usually see the opposite construction in most cases. Something like: > > static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion, > unsigned long *flags) > { > if (run_to_completion) > return; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > } Yes, that's better, I've changed it. > > Thanks for doing this, this looks way better! No problem. It was more for my own benefit :-). -corey > --breno