Re: [PATCH] serial: Initialize spinlocks in 8250 and don't clobberthem.

[David Daney]

Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> OK..  But serial8250_isa_init_ports() has so many callsites that I'd
> worry that we end up running this initialisation multiple times.  Say,
> if the right combination of boot options is provided?  This is probably
> a benign thing, but it's not desirable.
>
> A simple "fix" would be
>
> static void __init irq_lists_init(void)
> {
> 	static unsigned long done;
>
> 	if (!test_and_set_bit(0, &done)) {
> 		int i;
>
> 		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(irq_lists); i++)
> 			spin_lock_init(&irq_lists[i].lock);
> 	}
> }
>
> A better fix would be to initialise all those spinlocks at compile
> time.  But given the need to pass the address of each lock into each
> lock's initialiser, that could be tricky.

Alan Cox already fixed this part different way.

> >  	for (i = 0; i < nr_uarts; i++) {
> >  		struct uart_8250_port *up = &serial8250_ports[i];
> >  
> > @@ -2699,12 +2702,24 @@ static struct uart_driver serial8250_reg = {
> >   */
> >  int __init early_serial_setup(struct uart_port *port)
> >  {
> > +	struct uart_port *p;
> > +
> >  	if (port->line >= ARRAY_SIZE(serial8250_ports))
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  
> >  	serial8250_isa_init_ports();
> > -	serial8250_ports[port->line].port	= *port;
> > -	serial8250_ports[port->line].port.ops	= &serial8250_pops;
> > +	p = &serial8250_ports[port->line].port;
> > +	p->iobase       = port->iobase;
> > +	p->membase      = port->membase;
> > +	p->irq          = port->irq;
> > +	p->uartclk      = port->uartclk;
> > +	p->fifosize     = port->fifosize;
> > +	p->regshift     = port->regshift;
> > +	p->iotype       = port->iotype;
> > +	p->flags        = port->flags;
> > +	p->mapbase      = port->mapbase;
> > +	p->private_data = port->private_data;
> > +	p->ops		= &serial8250_pops;
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
>
> Having to spell out each member like this is pretty nasty from a
> maintainability point of view.  If new fields are added to uart_port,
> we surely will forget to update this code.
>
> But yes, copying a spinlock by value is quite wrong.  Perhaps we could
> retain the struct assigment and then run spin_lock_init() to get the
> spinlock into a sane state?

It is ugly, I will think about this part more.

Thanks,
David Daney
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/