linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] drivers/base: add managed token devres interfaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:10:34 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, linux@...ck-us.net, toshi.kani@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	shuahkhan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] drivers/base: add managed token devres interfaces

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:01:32PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Operating on the lock should be atomic, which is what devres_update()
> is doing. It can be simplified as follows by holding devres_lock
> in devm_token_lock().
> 
> spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->devres_lock, flags);
> if (tkn_ptr->status == TOKEN_DEVRES_FREE)
> 	tkn_ptr->status = TOKEN_DEVRES_BUSY;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->devres_lock, flags);
> 
> Is this in-line with what you have in mind?

How is that different from tkn_ptr->status = TOKEN_DEVRES_BUSY?

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