[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a873e584-ddf3-dacd-4901-514bd961841e@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:15:14 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>,
Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "seqlock: lockdep assert non-preemptibility on
seqcount_t write"
On 8/19/20 12:34 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:00:22 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior said:
>> On 2020-08-18 17:56:49 [-0700], Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Nice catch. FWIW, there is no obvious reason why this would need to be atomic.
>>> The calling code does not set a lock, meaning there can be two (or more)
>>> callers entering this code. Weird, especially since the code looks like it
>>> would actually need a mutex to work correctly. It might be interesting to
>>> see what happens if there are, say, half a dozen scripts/processes trying
>>> to read the hwmon attribute introduced by this patch at the same time.
>>
>> => https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200818161439.3dkf6jzp3vuwmvvh@linutronix.de
>
> Looks reasonable to me, though I've not verified that it's preemptible at that
> point...
>
hw_atl_b0_get_mac_temp is called through the .hw_get_mac_temp callback.
This callback is executed from aq_hwmon_read(), which in turn is called
from the hwmon core, more specifically from hwmon_attr_show().
Calls from the hwmon core are unlocked.
Guenter
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists