linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] mfd: mc13xxx-core: put mutex lock down to mc13xxx_reg

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 May 2011 23:26:59 +0800
From:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yong Shen <yong.shen@...aro.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mfd: mc13xxx-core: put mutex lock down to
 mc13xxx_reg_rmw function

> I havn't looked deeply, but I guess this can have unwanted side effects
> here. Before you had:
>
>        lock()
>        do(something)
>        do(something, else, that, needs, rmw)
>        unlock()
>
> and you introduced an unlock()/lock() between these two do()s.
>
Indeed, you are right. I cannot change it this way.

> I'm not convinced this change is good, though I agree that
>
>        lock()
>        rmw(...)
>        unlock()
>
> looks ugly, but imho this can better be fixed by adding a wrapper for
> that sequence if you really want.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
>
--
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/