> Subject: RE: [PATCH] of: fix of_update_property [v2]
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 05:29:53 +0000, "Li.Xiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <Li.Xiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > @@ -1776,25 +1776,26 @@ int of_update_property(struct device_node *np,
> > > struct property *newprop)
> > > > if (!newprop->name)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > - oldprop = of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
> > > > - if (!oldprop)
> > > > - return of_add_property(np, newprop);
> > > > -
> > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&devtree_lock, flags);
> > > > - next = &np->properties;
> > > > - while (*next) {
> > > > + oldprop = __of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
> > > > + if (!oldprop) {
> > > > + /* add the node */
> > > > + rc = __of_add_property(np, newprop);
> > > > + } else {
> > >
> > > if you changed this line to:
> > > } else while (*next) {
> > > then most of the other changes go away. You don't need the separate
> > > while loop
> >
Well, this will output some errors by using the './scripts/checkpatch.pl'
Checking.
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line
#1785: FILE: of/base.c:1785:
+ else while (*next) {
ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line
#1785: FILE: of/base.c:1785:
+ else while (*next) {
Should be split into two lines...
Thanks,
BRs
Xiubo
> > Yes, I will fix this.
> >
> >
> > > and the function remains largely identical aside from moving
> > > the __of_find_property() into the spinlock.
> > >
> >
> > But, from the following codes, we can see that, if oldprop != NULL
> > Meaning that we have found it, and should just do the updatation later:
> > +++++++++++++++
> > oldprop = of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
> > if (!oldprop)
> > return of_add_property(np, newprop);
> > ---------------
> >
> >
> >
> > > > /* found the node */
> > > > newprop->next = oldprop->next;
> > > > *next = newprop;
> > > > oldprop->next = np->deadprops;
> > > > np->deadprops = oldprop;
> > > > - found = 1;
> >
> > And why the 'found' flag is here is that the oldprop maybe removed
> > just before the spin_lock and after of_find_property().
> >
> > And so use and move __of_find_property() and __of_add_property() into
> > the spinlock could avoid this...
>
> Isn't that what I said?
>
> g.
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> >
> > BRs,
> > Xiubo
> >
> >
> > > > - break;
> > > > }
> > > > - next = &(*next)->next;
> > > > }
> > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > if (rc)
> > > > return rc;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1803,9 +1804,6 @@ int of_update_property(struct device_node *np,
> struct
> > > property *newprop)
> > > > sysfs_remove_bin_file(&np->kobj, &oldprop->attr);
> > > > __of_add_property_sysfs(np, newprop);
> > > >
> > > > - if (!found)
> > > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > > -
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 1.8.4
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
