[PATCH] bnx2: annotate bp->phy_lock functions

[PATCH] bnx2: annotate bp->phy_lock functions

[Harvey Harrison]

It looks like the locking is OK as the locks were being taken before the
various phy setup functions, add the annotations as they release and
reacquire the phy_lock.

Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/bnx2.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bnx2.c b/drivers/net/bnx2.c
index d4a3dac..d86a8f2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bnx2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bnx2.c
@@ -1497,6 +1497,8 @@ static int bnx2_fw_sync(struct bnx2 *, u32, int, int);
 
 static int
 bnx2_setup_remote_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 port)
+__releases(&bp->phy_lock)
+__acquires(&bp->phy_lock)
 {
 	u32 speed_arg = 0, pause_adv;
 
@@ -1554,6 +1556,8 @@ bnx2_setup_remote_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 port)
 
 static int
 bnx2_setup_serdes_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 port)
+__releases(&bp->phy_lock)
+__acquires(&bp->phy_lock)
 {
 	u32 adv, bmcr;
 	u32 new_adv = 0;
@@ -1866,6 +1870,8 @@ bnx2_set_remote_link(struct bnx2 *bp)
 
 static int
 bnx2_setup_copper_phy(struct bnx2 *bp)
+__releases(&bp->phy_lock)
+__acquires(&bp->phy_lock)
 {
 	u32 bmcr;
 	u32 new_bmcr;
@@ -1963,6 +1969,8 @@ bnx2_setup_copper_phy(struct bnx2 *bp)
 
 static int
 bnx2_setup_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 port)
+__releases(&bp->phy_lock)
+__acquires(&bp->phy_lock)
 {
 	if (bp->loopback == MAC_LOOPBACK)
 		return 0;
@@ -2176,6 +2184,8 @@ bnx2_init_copper_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, int reset_phy)
 
 static int
 bnx2_init_phy(struct bnx2 *bp, int reset_phy)
+__releases(&bp->phy_lock)
+__acquires(&bp->phy_lock)
 {
 	u32 val;
 	int rc = 0;
-- 
1.6.1.249.g455e5

Re: [PATCH] bnx2: annotate bp->phy_lock functions

[Harvey Harrison]

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 12:12 -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> It looks like the locking is OK as the locks were being taken before the
> various phy setup functions, add the annotations as they release and
> reacquire the phy_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> ---

Whoops, bnx2 != bnx2x....that driver needs serious help in the endianess
department, but it doesn't actually lok to hard to sort out as it seems
most of the warnings come about as the hardware structs are just not
annotated, but the correct accessors seem to be in place in the code.

In addition, there are piles of macros in the driver that really shouldn't
be.  I'll have a look this afternoon at some of the low-hanging fruit.

Harvey

Re: [PATCH] bnx2: annotate bp->phy_lock functions

[David Miller]

From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:11:50 -0800

> It looks like the locking is OK as the locks were being taken before the
> various phy setup functions, add the annotations as they release and
> reacquire the phy_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>

Queued up for 2.6.30, thanks Harvey.

Re: [PATCH] bnx2: annotate bp->phy_lock functions

[Eilon Greenstein]

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 12:29 -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
[...]
> Whoops, bnx2 != bnx2x....that driver needs serious help in the endianess
> department, but it doesn't actually lok to hard to sort out as it seems
> most of the warnings come about as the hardware structs are just not
> annotated, but the correct accessors seem to be in place in the code.
> 
> In addition, there are piles of macros in the driver that really shouldn't
> be.  I'll have a look this afternoon at some of the low-hanging fruit.
> 
> Harvey

Thanks Harvey, I appreciate the help

Eilon