linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdJqyNBC=iy_FGVsxeskHko=P9=SJqrN8Hq1GtXZEyoRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:27:39 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device_wakeup()

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> To prepare for a subsequent change and make the code somewhat easier
> to follow, do the following in the ACPI device wakeup handling code:
>
>  * Replace wakeup.flags.enabled under struct acpi_device with
>    wakeup.enable_count as that will be necessary going forward.
>
>    For now, wakeup.enable_count is not allowed to grow beyond 1,
>    so the current behavior is retained.
>
>  * Split acpi_device_wakeup() into acpi_device_wakeup_enable()
>    and acpi_device_wakeup_disable() and modify the callers of
>    it accordingly.
>
>  * Introduce a new acpi_wakeup_lock mutex to protect the wakeup
>    enabling/disabling code from races in case it is executed
>    more than once in parallel for the same device (which may
>    happen for bridges theoretically).

I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here

To be constructive:
out -> err_unlock
out -> out_unlock or err_unlock (depends on context)


> +out:
> +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);
> +       return error;

> +out:
> +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko