linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

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]

Message-ID: <20160419154059.GW3217@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:40:59 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:16:59AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:

> So the following seems to work, but only item I am uncertain about
> is if it is ok to move the mutex_lock to after the
> machine_set_constraints()?

We definitely don't need the list to apply constraints to a single
regulator.

> +	mutex_lock(&regulator_list_mutex);
> +
>  	ret = device_register(&rdev->dev);
>  	if (ret != 0) {
>  		put_device(&rdev->dev);
> +		mutex_unlock(&regulator_list_mutex);
>  		goto wash;
>  	}

This is *really* weird.  Why would we need the list lock to do a
device_register()?  

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)