[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b335330-900e-4620-8aaf-a27424f44321@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:28:21 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
davem@...emloft.net, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/9] net: stmmac: Introduce dwmac1000
ptp_clock_info and operations
On 11/12/24 01:12, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:03:25 +0100 Maxime Chevallier wrote:
>> + mutex_unlock(&priv->aux_ts_lock);
>> +
>> + /* wait for auxts fifo clear to finish */
>> + ret = readl_poll_timeout(ptpaddr + PTP_TCR, tcr_val,
>> + !(tcr_val & GMAC_PTP_TCR_ATSFC),
>> + 10, 10000);
>
> Is there a good reason to wait for the flush to complete outside of
> the mutex?
Indeed looking at other `ptpaddr` access use-case, it looks like the
mutex protects both read and write accesses.
@Maxime: is the above intentional? looks race-prone
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists