netdev - Re: [PATCH] alx: add a simple AR816x/AR817x device driver

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:	Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:38:01 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...not-panic.com, kvalo@...rom.com,
	adrian.chadd@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alx: add a simple AR816x/AR817x device driver

On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 01:03 +0200, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> :
> [...]
> > Yes, I suppose I could, but is it worth it? It's held only for a very
> > short amount of time to get the indirect register access correct. I
> > don't really see any reason to prefer a mutex here?
> 
> Neither a spinlock nor a mutex should be needed but I have to sleep
> before figuring it.

I totally think you're right, I'm just not a big fan of making the
locking difficult to understand :-)

OTOH, I could stick an ASSERT_RTNL() in there and not worry about it.
I'm fairly sure that everything here is under rtnl (work struct I lock
myself, configuration ops will be, and ethtool should be too ...) but
does removing that lock really make the driver better? I'm not really
sure about that.

johannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html