[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKbEznuuGX3Gnqg6WF2mqbigRps0gzK_PfGHGNy8-v1WOZoMUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 06:10:28 +0900
From: Gyeyoung Baek <gye976@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: trigger: Avoid data race
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:25 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:05 PM Gyeyoung Baek <gye976@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > A data race could occur between `atomic_read()` and `atomic_set()`
> > Use `atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed()` to group them atomically.
> >
> > Previously the main logic was executed when `use_count` is 0.
> > Now it returns early when `use_count` is not 0.
>
> > - int i;
>
> I don't see the point in changing this line.
> ...
>
> > - int i;
>
> Ditto.
>
> ...
>
> At bare minimum they are not relevant to the patch change and haven't
> been described in the commit messages.
Hi Andy, thanks for your review.
I initially skipped this part as I thought it was minor.
But on a second look, it seems better to separate the declaration from
the logic.
What do you think about the data race logic? Would it make sense?
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists