On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 01:31:42PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:02:08 +0000
> Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > + err = -EINVAL;
> > > > + mutex_lock(&msa311->lock);
> > > > + for (odr = 0; odr < ARRAY_SIZE(msa311_odr_table); ++odr)
> > > > + if (val == msa311_odr_table[odr].val &&
> > > > + val2 == msa311_odr_table[odr].val2) {
> > > > + err = msa311_set_odr(msa311, odr);
> > >
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "cannot update freq (%d)\n", err);
> > > > + goto failed;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Why is this inside the loop and more important under lock? Also you
> > > may cover the initial error code by this message when moving it out of
> > > the loop and lock.
> > >
> > > Ditto for other code snippets in other function(s) where applicable.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I can move dev_err() outside of loop. But all ODR search loop
> > should be under lock fully, because other msa311 operations should not
> > be executed when we search proper ODR place.
>
> I don't see why? The search itself is for a match of the input to const data.
> That can occur before taking the lock to do the actual write.
>
> I don't see any additional race beyond the one that is always there of
> a thread updating ODR whilst another is accessing the device. Which order
> those events happen in is not controlled by the driver, but the output
> will be consistent with one or other order of those two accesses.
>
> Jonathan
Agreed, will be changed in the v4.
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
