On 19/03/17 17:14, Gargi Sharma wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, simran singhal
> <singhalsimran0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by
>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes.
>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes.
>>
>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state
>> changes. Replace it with buf_lock in the devices global data.
>>
>> As buf_lock protects both the adis16060_spi_write() and
>> adis16060_spi_read() functions and both are always called in
>> pair. First write, then read. Thus, refactor the code to have
>> one single function adis16060_spi_write_than_read() which is
>> protected by the existing buf_lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> v5:
>> -Rename val in adis16060_spi_write_than_read() to conf.
>> -Rename val2 in adis16060_spi_write_than_read() to val.
>> -Corrected Checkpatch issues.
>> -Removed goto from adis16060_read_raw().
>>
>>
>> drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c | 42 ++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c b/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> index c9d46e7..0f12492 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> @@ -40,25 +40,20 @@ struct adis16060_state {
>>
>> static struct iio_dev *adis16060_iio_dev;
>>
>> -static int adis16060_spi_write(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u8 val)
>> +static int adis16060_spi_write_than_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> + u8 conf, u16 *val)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>
>> mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> - st->buf[2] = val; /* The last 8 bits clocked in are latched */
>> + st->buf[2] = conf; /* The last 8 bits clocked in are latched */
>> ret = spi_write(st->us_w, st->buf, 3);
>> - mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>>
>> - return ret;
>> -}
>> -
>> -static int adis16060_spi_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u16 *val)
>> -{
>> - int ret;
>> - struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> -
>> - mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> ret = spi_read(st->us_r, st->buf, 3);
>>
>> @@ -69,8 +64,8 @@ static int adis16060_spi_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u16 *val)
>> */
>> if (!ret)
>> *val = ((st->buf[0] & 0x3) << 12) |
>> - (st->buf[1] << 4) |
>> - ((st->buf[2] >> 4) & 0xF);
>> + (st->buf[1] << 4) |
>> + ((st->buf[2] >> 4) & 0xF);
>> mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>>
>> return ret;
>> @@ -83,20 +78,19 @@ static int adis16060_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> {
>> u16 tval = 0;
>> int ret;
>> + struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>
>> switch (mask) {
>> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>> /* Take the iio_dev status lock */
>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> - ret = adis16060_spi_write(indio_dev, chan->address);
>> + mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + ret = adis16060_spi_write_than_read(indio_dev,
>> + chan->address, &tval);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out_unlock;
>> + mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - ret = adis16060_spi_read(indio_dev, &tval);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out_unlock;
>> -
>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> + mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>> *val = tval;
>> return IIO_VAL_INT;
>> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET:
>> @@ -110,10 +104,6 @@ static int adis16060_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> }
>>
>> return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> -out_unlock:
>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> - return ret;
>> }
>>
>
> Hey Simran,
>
> I'm another Outreachy aspirant and I'm trying to work through a
> similar patch in another driver. Can you please explain to me how you
> are avoiding nested locks here? From what I understand, the function
> adis16060_read_raw call a lock on &st->buf_lock and then you call the
> function adis16060_spi_write_than_read which again tries to get hold
> of the same lock. Isn't this a deadlock situation? Please let me know
> if my understanding is incorrect.
Well spotted. That is indeed the case. Just goes to show how more
eyes on code is always a good thing!
The locks in read_raw itself should be dropped as we now have a single
safe function with the locks inside it being called.
Jonathan
>
> Thank you!
> Gargi
>
>> static const struct iio_info adis16060_info = {
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20170319125039.GA23385%40singhal-Inspiron-5558.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
