Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: plx_dma: Fix potential deadlock on &plxdev->ring_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

Hi Logan and Christophe,

Thanks much for the reply and reminder, and yes, spin_lock_bh() should
be better.

When I wrote the patch I thought the spin_lock_bh() cannot be nested,
and afraid that if some outside callers called .dma_tx_status() callback
with softirq already disable, then spin_unlock_bh() would unintentionally
re-enable softirq(). spin_lock_irqsave() is always safer in general thus I
used it.

But I just check the document [1] about these API and found that _bh()
can be nested. Then use spin_lock_bh() should be better due to
performance concern.


> So perhaps we should just revert 1d05a0bdb420?
Then for this one I think revert 1d05a0bdb420 should be enough. May I
ask to revert that patch, should I do anything further? (like sending
a new patch).

> as explained in another reply [1], would spin_lock_bh() be enough in
> such a case?
For the another one [2], I would send a v2 patch to change to spin_lock_bh()

[1] http://books.gigatux.nl/mirror/kerneldevelopment/0672327201/ch07lev1sec6.html
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5125e39b-0faf-63fc-0c51-982b2a567e21@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks again,
Chengfeng