linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

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: <20200512065023.GA10741@kozik-lap>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 08:50:23 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:13:38AM -0700, Bernard Zhao wrote:
> Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function
> exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect,
> dmc->lock is more better and more effective.
> Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn"
> branch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
> ---
>  drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

I checked the concurrent accesses and it looks correct.

Lukasz, any review from your side?

Best regards,
Krzysztof