linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (ina3221) Add voltage conversion time settings

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:48:18 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     jdelvare@...e.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (ina3221) Add voltage conversion time settings

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:39:49AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:

> > Thinking about it ... does it even make sense to cache reg_config twice,
> > or would it be better to just update the local copy and use regmap_write()
> > to send it to the chip ?
> 
> I remember the reason of adding the read-back was to prevent race
> condition. But now we have mutex protections for all sysfs nodes,
> maybe it's not necessary anymore. I will read the code carefully
> and see if it's safe to remove it -- will do in a separate patch.

I just recalled a second thought for the reason why I left them
there as it'd logically require a copy to restore upon failure
of regmap_write, that might not look so neat as the read-back:

	old_config = reg_config;
	reg_config &= mask;
	reg_config |= val;
	ret = regmap_write(reg_config);
	if (ret) {
		reg_config = old_config;
		return ret;
	}

Would you prefer this?