On 17/10/2019 17:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:07:36PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:@@ -1180,7 +1179,7 @@ int iommu_dma_prepare_msi(struct msi_desc *desc, phys_addr_t msi_addr) struct iommu_domain *domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev); struct iommu_dma_cookie *cookie; struct iommu_dma_msi_page *msi_page; - unsigned long flags; + static DEFINE_MUTEX(msi_prepare_lock);Just a style nitpick, but I find locks declared inside functions really weird. In addition to that locks not embedded into a structure and not directly next to variables or data structures they protect really need a comment explaining what they are trying to serialize.
Hmm, the lock itself is merely a glorified comment, it's named for the operation it protects, its entire existence spans 15 consecutive lines, and 27% of those lines are dedicated to explaining that it's technically redundant. Is there *really* anything that isn't clear from the context?
Robin. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
