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;
IronPort-SDR: fdi66C2t2dwZ+/gK89fEmj+UDUTi2DXFcfhCJjwRHYOA31yWZm9NE5q0zc/9SAKmdnenIji15c
 gQitbFoMJv8g==
IronPort-SDR: Uv/sQUYf46bgYDKfel7rXV+9Fn8OF1Z98xSc8zWQy6IB7TB+HDS3Q5dLxFo8a9fCUlIDvQQ7Lp
 lbLsyioiTD4g==
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:56:37 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To:     "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Cc:     luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxarm@openeuler.org" <linuxarm@openeuler.org>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm]  Re: [PATCH for next v1 0/2] gpio: few clean up
 patches to replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock
Message-ID: <YCP0JeEUcoPp9B/H@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <1612774577-55943-1-git-send-email-luojiaxing@huawei.com>
 <2b8001bb-0bcd-3fea-e15c-2722e7243209@huawei.com>
 <CAHp75VcpeYpsW6B85F0u=B+GToNh=1fYdRSMeQqE0vOtOdSi8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1a5dfcf2-11a2-f549-782d-447d58e21305@huawei.com>
 <CAHp75Vd5UV3E79sdq8uQ4pgjFORdJknpm-g7No3tomnKhinMnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c2458ac9-669b-bd46-df98-7d86d38459b1@huawei.com>
 <CAHp75VdrskuNkvFr4MPbbg8c8=VSug0GT+vs=cMRMOqLr+-f5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <947bcef0d56a4d0c82729d6899394f4a@hisilicon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <947bcef0d56a4d0c82729d6899394f4a@hisilicon.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:50:45AM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:51 PM
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:43 AM luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > On 2021/2/9 17:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > Between IRQ handler A and IRQ handle A, it's no need for a SLIS.
> > 
> > Right, but it's not the case in the patches you provided.
> 
> The code still holds spin_lock. So if two cpus call same IRQ handler,
> spin_lock makes them spin; and if interrupts are threaded, spin_lock
> makes two threads run the same handler one by one.

If you run on an SMP system and it happens that spin_lock_irqsave() just
immediately after spin_unlock(), you will get into the troubles. Am I mistaken?

I think this entire activity is a carefully crafted mine field for the future
syzcaller and fuzzers alike. I don't believe there are no side effects in a long
term on all possible systems and configurations (including forced threaded IRQ
handlers).

I would love to see a better explanation in the commit message of such patches
which makes it clear that there are *no* side effects.

For time being, NAK to the all patches of this kind.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko