Re: [PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:13:21 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 11/12/18 7:57 pm, Greg Kurz wrote: > > I now realize that I should have mentioned the real motivation for this > > change. I'm working on refactoring the code so that we can use ocxl in a > > KVM guest. The concept of link can be shared by both powernv and pseries > > variants but the SPA is definitely a powernv only thingy. The benefit > > of this patch is hence to kick 'struct link' out of free_spa() so that > > it can be utimately moved to powernv specific code. > > > > The initial version of this change was just moving the link->spa check > > and link->spa = NULL to the callers, where it was quite obvious they're > > not needed... Should I re-post this as two patches for clarity ? > > Ah, that makes much more sense. > > If that's the case, then why not go all the way and change the function > signature while you're at it? > Sure, will do.
Re: [PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
On 11/12/18 7:57 pm, Greg Kurz wrote: I now realize that I should have mentioned the real motivation for this change. I'm working on refactoring the code so that we can use ocxl in a KVM guest. The concept of link can be shared by both powernv and pseries variants but the SPA is definitely a powernv only thingy. The benefit of this patch is hence to kick 'struct link' out of free_spa() so that it can be utimately moved to powernv specific code. The initial version of this change was just moving the link->spa check and link->spa = NULL to the callers, where it was quite obvious they're not needed... Should I re-post this as two patches for clarity ? Ah, that makes much more sense. If that's the case, then why not go all the way and change the function signature while you're at it? -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited
Re: [PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:05:49 +1100
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/12/18 2:15 am, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
> > in both cases:
> >
> > - link->spa != NULL
> >
> > - free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
> >
> > The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
> > pointer. Drop both.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz
>
> I like defensive programming but for this case I don't really care too
> much either way
>
I now realize that I should have mentioned the real motivation for this
change. I'm working on refactoring the code so that we can use ocxl in a
KVM guest. The concept of link can be shared by both powernv and pseries
variants but the SPA is definitely a powernv only thingy. The benefit
of this patch is hence to kick 'struct link' out of free_spa() so that
it can be utimately moved to powernv specific code.
The initial version of this change was just moving the link->spa check
and link->spa = NULL to the callers, where it was quite obvious they're
not needed... Should I re-post this as two patches for clarity ?
> Acked-by: Andrew Donnellan
>
> > ---
> > drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c |7 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
> > index 31695a078485..eed92055184d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
> > @@ -352,11 +352,8 @@ static void free_spa(struct link *link)
> > pr_debug("Freeing SPA for %x:%x:%x\n", link->domain, link->bus,
> > link->dev);
> >
> > - if (spa && spa->spa_mem) {
> > - free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
> > - kfree(spa);
> > - link->spa = NULL;
> > - }
> > + free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
> > + kfree(spa);
> > }
> >
> > static int alloc_link(struct pci_dev *dev, int PE_mask, struct link
> > **out_link)
> >
>
Re: [PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
On 11/12/18 2:15 am, Greg Kurz wrote:
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop both.
Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz
I like defensive programming but for this case I don't really care too
much either way
Acked-by: Andrew Donnellan
---
drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
index 31695a078485..eed92055184d 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
@@ -352,11 +352,8 @@ static void free_spa(struct link *link)
pr_debug("Freeing SPA for %x:%x:%x\n", link->domain, link->bus,
link->dev);
- if (spa && spa->spa_mem) {
- free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
- kfree(spa);
- link->spa = NULL;
- }
+ free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
+ kfree(spa);
}
static int alloc_link(struct pci_dev *dev, int PE_mask, struct link **out_link)
--
Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra
andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited
[PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop both.
Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz
---
drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
index 31695a078485..eed92055184d 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
@@ -352,11 +352,8 @@ static void free_spa(struct link *link)
pr_debug("Freeing SPA for %x:%x:%x\n", link->domain, link->bus,
link->dev);
- if (spa && spa->spa_mem) {
- free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
- kfree(spa);
- link->spa = NULL;
- }
+ free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
+ kfree(spa);
}
static int alloc_link(struct pci_dev *dev, int PE_mask, struct link **out_link)
Re: [PATCH] ocxl: Simplify free_spa()
Le 10/12/2018 à 16:15, Greg Kurz a écrit :
The only users of free_spa() are alloc_link() and free_link(), and
in both cases:
- link->spa != NULL
- free_spa(link) is immediatly followed by kfree(link)
The check isn't needed, and it doesn't bring much to clear the link->spa
pointer. Drop both.
Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz
---
OK, that looks safe enough
Acked-by: Frederic Barrat
drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
index 31695a078485..eed92055184d 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/link.c
@@ -352,11 +352,8 @@ static void free_spa(struct link *link)
pr_debug("Freeing SPA for %x:%x:%x\n", link->domain, link->bus,
link->dev);
- if (spa && spa->spa_mem) {
- free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
- kfree(spa);
- link->spa = NULL;
- }
+ free_pages((unsigned long) spa->spa_mem, spa->spa_order);
+ kfree(spa);
}
static int alloc_link(struct pci_dev *dev, int PE_mask, struct link
**out_link)
