| Message ID | 20200817091617.28119-3-allen.cryptic@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 83dea128567250ee8dee6a5f1f9913f617bfc153 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | char: ipmi: convert tasklets to use new tasklet_setup() API | expand |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:45:57PM +0530, Allen Pais wrote: > From: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > In preparation for unconditionally passing the > struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet > callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup() > and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly. > > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> This looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> Are you planning to push this, or do you want me to take it? If you want me to take it, what is the urgency? -corey > --- > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 13 ++++++------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > index 737c0b6b24ea..e1814b6a1225 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long); > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > @@ -3430,9 +3430,8 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > intf->curr_seq = 0; > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > - tasklet_init(&intf->recv_tasklet, > - smi_recv_tasklet, > - (unsigned long) intf); > + tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > + smi_recv_tasklet); > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > @@ -4467,10 +4466,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > } > } > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val) > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > { > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = (struct ipmi_smi *) val; > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > @@ -4542,7 +4541,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > if (run_to_completion) > - smi_recv_tasklet((unsigned long) intf); > + smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > else > tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > } > -- > 2.17.1 >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > This looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > Are you planning to push this, or do you want me to take it? If you > want me to take it, what is the urgency? Thanks. Well, not hurry, as long as it goes into 5.9 with all other changes. > > -corey > > > --- > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 13 ++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > index 737c0b6b24ea..e1814b6a1225 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > > > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long); > > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > @@ -3430,9 +3430,8 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > > intf->curr_seq = 0; > > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > - tasklet_init(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > - smi_recv_tasklet, > > - (unsigned long) intf); > > + tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > + smi_recv_tasklet); > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > > @@ -4467,10 +4466,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > } > > } > > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val) > > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > > { > > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = (struct ipmi_smi *) val; > > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > > > @@ -4542,7 +4541,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > > > if (run_to_completion) > > - smi_recv_tasklet((unsigned long) intf); > > + smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > else > > tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > } > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:46:23PM +0530, Allen wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > > > This looks good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > > > Are you planning to push this, or do you want me to take it? If you > > want me to take it, what is the urgency? > > Thanks. Well, not hurry, as long as it goes into 5.9 with all other > changes. Ok, this is queued in my for-next branch. -corey > > > > > > -corey > > > > > --- > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 13 ++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > index 737c0b6b24ea..e1814b6a1225 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > > > > > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > > > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long); > > > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > > > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > @@ -3430,9 +3430,8 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > > > intf->curr_seq = 0; > > > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > > - tasklet_init(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > > - smi_recv_tasklet, > > > - (unsigned long) intf); > > > + tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > > + smi_recv_tasklet); > > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > > > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > > > @@ -4467,10 +4466,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val) > > > +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > > > { > > > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > > > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = (struct ipmi_smi *) val; > > > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > > > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > > > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > > > > > @@ -4542,7 +4541,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > > > > > if (run_to_completion) > > > - smi_recv_tasklet((unsigned long) intf); > > > + smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > else > > > tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > -- > - Allen
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c index 737c0b6b24ea..e1814b6a1225 100644 --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long); +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, @@ -3430,9 +3430,8 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, intf->curr_seq = 0; spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); - tasklet_init(&intf->recv_tasklet, - smi_recv_tasklet, - (unsigned long) intf); + tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, + smi_recv_tasklet); atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); @@ -4467,10 +4466,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) } } -static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val) +static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) { unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ - struct ipmi_smi *intf = (struct ipmi_smi *) val; + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; @@ -4542,7 +4541,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); if (run_to_completion) - smi_recv_tasklet((unsigned long) intf); + smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); else tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); }