linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: Reduce time the pwm_lock mutex is held in pwmchip

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: <Y3SbNM8H3QxY0XF2@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:11:32 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: Reduce time the pwm_lock mutex is held in
 pwmchip_add()

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:15:13PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> This simplifies error handling as the need for goto error handling goes
> away and at the end of the function the code can be simplified as this
> code isn't used in the error case any more.

...

> +	mutex_unlock(&pwm_lock);
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF))
>  		of_pwmchip_add(chip);

Why calling this without a lock is not a problem? Commit message doesn't share
a bit about this change.

> -out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&pwm_lock);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko