[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070204205817.fe686375.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:58:17 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
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
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:42:09 +0100 Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:
> 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?
Yup - we make the same assumption about longs in various places.
It's a bit strange to read a pointer which can be changing at the
same time. Because the local copy will no longer represent the
thing which it was just copied from.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists