[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6PxNRgzPAdukDs5@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 06:55:01 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: convert atomic_* to refcount_* APIs
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:27:40AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the
> atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They protect the reference
> counters from overflow/underflow, use-after-free errors, provide
> improved memory ordering guarantee schemes, are neater and safer.
> Hence, replace the atomic_* APIs by their equivalent refcount_t
> API functions.
>
> This patch proposal address the following warnings generated by
> the atomic_as_refcounter.cocci coccinelle script
> atomic_add_return(-1, ...)
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
> ---
> Note: The patch is compile tested using dec_station.defconfig for
> MIPS architecture.
Do you have this hardware? If not, please just do
one-variable-at-a-time so that if there are real problems, we can revert
the offending change easier. And it makes it simpler to review.
But, are you sure this is correct:
> - irq_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->irq_guard);
> - if (irq_guard != 1)
> + refcount_inc(&mux->irq_guard);
> + if (refcount_read(&mux->irq_guard) != 1)
That is now different logic than before, why? Are you sure this is ok?
I stopped reviewing here...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists