[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100312224828.GA18618@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:48:28 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] enhance sysfs rfkill interface
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:39:25PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:20:26 -0800
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:57:43PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:22:09 -0800
> > > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 07:03:08PM +0100, florian@...kler.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +static ssize_t rfkill_hard_show(struct device *dev,
> > > > > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > > > + char *buf)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev);
> > > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > > + u32 state;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&rfkill->lock, flags);
> > > > > + state = rfkill->state;
> > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rfkill->lock, flags);
> > > >
> > > > Why exactly is this lock needed?
> > >
> > > The rfkill state is updated from multiple contexts... Am I overlooking
> > > smth obvious here?
> > >
> >
> > You are not updating but reading... Are you concerned about seeing
> > a partial write to u32? It does not happen.
> >
> Hm.. You shure? On every arch that supports wireless drivers?
>
> I've just copied that code from the old sysfs state-file handler.
> So I assumed that reading partial updated state can happen... Also I
> just searched a little but did not find anything, cause i didn't know
> where to look. Who garantees this? Is it a gcc thing?
>
None of the arches would do byte-by-byte writes to a u32, they'd write
dword at once. Also, even if they could, you are interested in a single
flag (bit). You do realize that once you leave spinlock whatever you
fetched is stale data and may not be trusted?
--
Dmitry
--
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