[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45C68B71.6050904@imap.cc>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:42:09 +0100
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@....de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/isdn/gigaset: new M101 driver
Am 04.02.2007 02:56 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:32:41 +0100 Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:
>
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>>> + cb = cs->cmdbuf;
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>> It is doubtful if the locking here does anything useful.
>> It assures atomicity when reading the cs->cmdbuf pointer.
>
> I think it's bogus. If the quantity being copied here is more than 32-bits
> then yes, a lock is appropriate. But if it's a single word then it's
> unlikely that the locking does anything useful. Or there might be a bug
> here.
It's a pointer. Are reads and writes of pointer sized objects
guaranteed to be atomic on every platform? If so, I'll happily
omit the locking.
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>>> + cb->prev = cs->lastcmdbuf;
>>>> + if (cs->lastcmdbuf)
>>>> + cs->lastcmdbuf->next = cb;
>>>> + else {
>>>> + cs->cmdbuf = cb;
>>>> + cs->curlen = len;
>>>> + }
>>>> + cs->cmdbytes += len;
>>>> + cs->lastcmdbuf = cb;
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>> Would the use of list_heads simplify things here?
>> I don't think so. The operations in list.h do not keep track of
>> the total byte count, and adding that in a race-free way appears
>> non-trivial.
>
> Maintaining a byte count isn't related to maintaining a list.
Sure. But your question was whether the list.h operations would
simplify this code. AFAICS it wouldn't, because the necessity
of maintaining the byte count would complicate a list.h based
solution beyond the current one. Also, this is part of the
interface with the components of the Gigaset driver which are
already part of the kernel. Changing this to a list_head now
would require significant changes in those other parts, too.
>>>> + tail = atomic_read(&inbuf->tail);
>>>> + head = atomic_read(&inbuf->head);
>>>> + gig_dbg(DEBUG_INTR, "buffer state: %u -> %u, receive %u bytes",
>>>> + head, tail, count);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (head <= tail) {
>>>> + n = RBUFSIZE - tail;
>>>> + if (count >= n) {
>>>> + /* buffer wraparound */
>>>> + memcpy(inbuf->data + tail, buf, n);
>>>> + tail = 0;
>>>> + buf += n;
>>>> + count -= n;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + memcpy(inbuf->data + tail, buf, count);
>>>> + tail += count;
>>>> + buf += count;
>>>> + count = 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>> Perhaps the (fairly revolting) circ_buf.h can be used for this stuff.
>> It probably could, but IMHO readability would suffer rather than improve.
>
> How about kernel/kfifo.c?
That would indeed fit the bill. But again, this code matches
parts of drivers/isdn/gigaset which are already in the kernel,
and changing it here would require significant corresponding
changes in those other parts.
I'll gladly consider your last two propositions (list_head for
cs->lastcmdbuf and kfifo for cs->inbuf) for a future revision of
the entire set of drivers in drivers/isdn/gigaset, but it goes
way beyond the scope of the present patch, which merely aims at
adding the missing M101 hardware driver.
Thanks,
Tilman
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (254 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists