From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f54.google.com (mail-oa1-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6202335CBCA for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.54 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769525173; cv=none; b=uA3pNecAFxVHF61zsio7WN7ojjjo1OEg0zu376Uf+lvO3Rk71JlM6MXOz7avnkSY6Ze3E/eJCKDd7m1PQtmzd6vsO27lLJLmPnT+7ovRgWFM1Vujr7N4WNuFaMUkPV8+CjF/NxvQcnEYnZx/w7CKtxGho4EGc+Ii+edlgaPzR4g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769525173; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fv2CQ15AU5d5Aod1Cu0Nr1aIgUDyc6KxS+DtPfjyvK8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cPJDOstfudpBzkZ+9w6VMco8hINjybbbA9ykICmMVvvF7vDoNnzX6G9uH8K+vjRFxq3BS9XUi1e6HwtAJa2K91e95Bcxm8FFjEx9Ed04sQZM4VLg8Ui96rkNO/MQ29TdA2nKHZFk+TybxMyPP39+Lp1j4xZZHsxqJineLSjRMjU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=minyard.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=minyard.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=minyard.net header.i=@minyard.net header.b=R5bewNLR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.54 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=minyard.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=minyard.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=minyard.net header.i=@minyard.net header.b="R5bewNLR" Received: by mail-oa1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-4086661715cso3948914fac.2 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=minyard.net; s=google; t=1769525171; x=1770129971; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fgGF8ctS0K4niRH9iziMpNUnP6faXj3JV6+BPJJ9b/E=; b=R5bewNLR6gN7/amMF1bAIUV3E8HnuNeZLcWifuC1IWk3uqWiSlOrrEp3nrTWwO9K9d xNhJq/gtVnhqaAAHmS1lRBJdUp2nvk7JslquN1Bm2lcd2lwW8S1EznUqQp7fbU+e8jG0 2zrnhwPPI54X/WWiAMzoj/irHAnUMlfQLoXgZTBjMkCTZXy94clu13l4TG6aB/fTNmYb 9DaxfrBcIB4MwrMNAillECTP3/t994llYOVUKi0ny2lOMQD2Bx0s/ux18Sn1jINwtl0B 32FGfW/gRiQbJO2TutlzSltI+CwV3Y5j69rAtTEDPP+93vszJbEVoCE+FPnzcNsmL3SI s6lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1769525171; x=1770129971; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fgGF8ctS0K4niRH9iziMpNUnP6faXj3JV6+BPJJ9b/E=; b=HRA99eW2vxNGO/4KduZSzcLgNLptFc00mD56ZuwzOVEP9a7olykSoXVcFhAzEhtZRr V3b2eH49SQrEAKH8qNHA08UAO/NOulAT5B1CFRzYzYWrT+FuuJcbJI0A8I0UVuva4W4G FLPTXHUn8JVQ+y5Zdthmnp50J6zVfPCLp2GfOFk6qVTFh2MXaKvAfoMccuMIKqWjDKvs R4NyZ8dSmIx1KlTcU+9gZQ4S02bEgys42tSBixaVmUmGVhORwx1V9VtQ/Ervw0H62hhy Okt0TxtpQi5KytGTUIGuKzyySfDEsodOJjI8JZGFiTEugNGeWCDptoYAD7YYXkIJGOBD cDKQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU5FcFiAWVj/4QTEW+7YWDMrCdNbJk2y75xUcL1WWIU16vrjTcl/u1srHQ6Qg4tKAq1WhzcHhL5qUyKdc0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw0WG2h8IwyYpFG93QHp7HSX58+PjhDKFHeTe6ikp0BEeKucyT5 vbZeEKXtsZIPEQ+G1z726bK/tKzgxE0+ZsQ1KLZdLZ6CCTZc20aANlvg/sXfZNciy7Aa4K1GNDc gEEZa X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aIU3a/HYVlnwdeSa6fsOqzwOZmZMR/EZ9OXz3pJg/rryfT6iOMHbdUoLhESU5f 8vsYju7LOjhE14mdwK3RKtEiJKYcnf/bt8qzrXB4rnuLu3ESsEcKftx1exUMNfZSIhXveWROQuM jPbwRAKkYFPNYXJHAknPRFR9TJ0kKFYFdLhtAItIUGifeNR6Ut6EQet1GKmyzeGhTFWXHmRzfPJ pyuEQ6uGd6b4ZzN0z6BjS9RXXBovGZ0DTVUcDjptXGpLe7P8853MAADyWIpr56nSkke3CJbX8Nc BqHnHePT58CBV4Ys6L0lt5ZPkteURuU/oxSP6cON2QLyi+92HRnX1N/QMFh8I1f1Ugp51sgXQl+ xFKun5nwQjRbrQvLinJBB2ulgMzE9RaomjZT/4qbCuu83yqTjytVtsng7eTPYbGavHBJ/3qinFB bgrAe88TprXJ9v5fO0qprET2I+wsFgCGzNVN9Bj72YIo1Dc1uNHVLOb4sR4auVVqSEIMi/qHNgp /y+j8Khk6pBZA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3846:b0:349:de3c:bfc5 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-4093fc81ca3mr1148844fac.7.1769525171085; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.minyard.net ([2001:470:b8f6:1b:a1a5:d807:e7a1:53eb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 586e51a60fabf-408af7ff54dsm9092668fac.1.2026.01.27.06.46.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:46:06 -0600 From: Corey Minyard To: Breno Leitao Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipmi: Consolidate the run to completion checking for xmit msgs lock Message-ID: Reply-To: corey@minyard.net References: <20260127-ipmi-v1-0-ba5cc90f516f@debian.org> <20260127135917.1597762-1-corey@minyard.net> <20260127135917.1597762-3-corey@minyard.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:41:48AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:54:40AM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > > It made things hard to read, move the check to a function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard > > --- > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > index a590a67294e2..030828cdb778 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > @@ -602,6 +602,20 @@ static int __ipmi_bmc_register(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > static int __scan_channels(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > struct ipmi_device_id *id, bool rescan); > > > > +static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion, > > + unsigned long *flags) > > +{ > > + if (!run_to_completion) > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > > +} > > I usually see the opposite construction in most cases. Something like: > > static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int run_to_completion, > unsigned long *flags) > { > if (run_to_completion) > return; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > } Yes, that's better, I've changed it. > > Thanks for doing this, this looks way better! No problem. It was more for my own benefit :-). -corey > --breno