Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:29:40 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
        Raul Rangel <rrangel@google.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uart:8250: change lock order in serial8250_do_startup()
Message-ID: <20200814112940.GB582@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20200814013802.357412-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20200814095928.GK1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200814095928.GK1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (20/08/14 12:59), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > ---
> >  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > index 09475695effd..67f1a4f31093 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
> > @@ -2275,6 +2275,11 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> >  
> >  	if (port->irq && !(up->port.flags & UPF_NO_THRE_TEST)) {
> >  		unsigned char iir1;
> 
> > +		bool irq_shared = up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED;
> 
> I'm wondering why we need a temporary variable? This flag is not supposed to be
> changed in between, can we leave original conditionals?

No particular reason. We can keep the original (long) ones, I guess.

> Nevertheless I noticed an inconsistency of the dereference of the flags which
> seems to be brough by dfe42443ea1d ("serial: reduce number of indirections in
> 8250 code").
>
> I think we can stick with newer:
>
> 		if (port->irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)

I'll take a look.

	-ss