From: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
With fast_io we use mutexes to lock the I/O operations so we would need to do GFP_ATOMIC allocations if we wanted to do allocations inside the lock as we do currently. Since it is unlikely that we will want to register a patch outside of init where concurrency shouldn't be an issue move the allocation of the patch data outside the lock.
Reported-by: Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org --- drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c index 554119535a64..2d7d55b3bedb 100644 --- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c +++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c @@ -2396,6 +2396,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regmap_async_complete); * apply them immediately. Typically this is used to apply * corrections to be applied to the device defaults on startup, such * as the updates some vendors provide to undocumented registers. + * + * The caller must ensure that this function cannot be called + * concurrently with either itself or regcache_sync(). */ int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const struct reg_default *regs, int num_regs) @@ -2408,6 +2411,17 @@ int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const struct reg_default *regs, num_regs)) return 0;
+ p = krealloc(map->patch, + sizeof(struct reg_default) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (p) { + memcpy(p + map->patch_regs, regs, num_regs * sizeof(*regs)); + map->patch = p; + map->patch_regs += num_regs; + } else { + return -ENOMEM; + } + map->lock(map->lock_arg);
bypass = map->cache_bypass; @@ -2419,17 +2433,6 @@ int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const struct reg_default *regs, if (ret != 0) goto out;
- p = krealloc(map->patch, - sizeof(struct reg_default) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), - GFP_KERNEL); - if (p) { - memcpy(p + map->patch_regs, regs, num_regs * sizeof(*regs)); - map->patch = p; - map->patch_regs += num_regs; - } else { - ret = -ENOMEM; - } - out: map->async = false; map->cache_bypass = bypass;
Hi Mark,
Just a single, mini-comment.
2014-03-18 13:02 GMT+01:00 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org:
From: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
With fast_io we use mutexes to lock the I/O operations so we would need to do GFP_ATOMIC allocations if we wanted to do allocations inside the lock as we do currently. Since it is unlikely that we will want to register a patch outside of init where concurrency shouldn't be an issue move the allocation of the patch data outside the lock.
Reported-by: Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@linaro.org
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c index 554119535a64..2d7d55b3bedb 100644 --- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c +++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c @@ -2396,6 +2396,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regmap_async_complete);
- apply them immediately. Typically this is used to apply
- corrections to be applied to the device defaults on startup, such
- as the updates some vendors provide to undocumented registers.
- The caller must ensure that this function cannot be called
*/
- concurrently with either itself or regcache_sync().
int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const struct reg_default *regs, int num_regs) @@ -2408,6 +2411,17 @@ int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const struct reg_default *regs, num_regs)) return 0;
p = krealloc(map->patch,
sizeof(struct reg_default) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (p) {
memcpy(p + map->patch_regs, regs, num_regs * sizeof(*regs));
map->patch = p;
map->patch_regs += num_regs;
} else {
return -ENOMEM;
}
I think that is not checkpatch-safe :-)
[...]
-- Regards, Levente Kurusa
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:43:18PM +0100, Levente Kurusa wrote:
2014-03-18 13:02 GMT+01:00 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org:
if (p) {
memcpy(p + map->patch_regs, regs, num_regs * sizeof(*regs));
map->patch = p;
map->patch_regs += num_regs;
} else {
return -ENOMEM;
}
I think that is not checkpatch-safe :-)
What makes you say that? If you think there's some problem say what it is please...
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org