On 02/17/2016 01:31 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:48:28PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>> +static int snd_pcm_iec958_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *uctl)
>> +{
>> + struct snd_pcm_iec958_params *params = snd_kcontrol_chip(kcontrol);
>> +
>> + if (params->mutex)
>> + mutex_unlock(params->mutex);
>> + uctl->value.iec958.status[0] = params->iec->status[0];
>> + uctl->value.iec958.status[1] = params->iec->status[1];
>> + uctl->value.iec958.status[2] = params->iec->status[2];
>> + uctl->value.iec958.status[3] = params->iec->status[3];
>> + uctl->value.iec958.status[4] = params->iec->status[4];
>> + if (params->mutex)
>> + mutex_unlock(params->mutex);
>
> I thought I had already commented about the mutex - maybe not. Please
> don't make these conditional like this: if you need the mutex to
> eliminate a race condition, then you need it to eliminate the race
> condition and it can't be "optional". Elimination of race conditions
> is never optional!
>
> Please get rid of all these conditions and make it mandatory that a
> mutex is supplied.
>
> Thanks.
Ok, i will suppress condition. I also need to use a spinlock instead of
the mutex, to be able to support race condition with atomic callbacks
(trigger, pointer, and ack)
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
