On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:55:20PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:50:40AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Looks like a good start!!! Some questions and suggestions about RCU
> > usage interspersed below.
> ...
> > > + * Locking: RCU reader.
> > > + */
> > > +int opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> > > + struct opp *temp_opp;
> > > + int count = 0;
> > > +
> > > + dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(dev_opp))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(temp_opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) {
> > > + if (temp_opp->available)
> > > + count++;
> > > + }
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > This one is OK as well. You are returning a count, so if all of the
> > counted structures are freed at this point, no problem. The count was
> > valid when it was accumulated, and the fact that it might now be obsolete
> > is (usually) not a problem.
>
> However, it looks like it should run rcu_read_lock() before calling
> find_device_opp(dev), shouldn't it?
Indeed it does appear that you are right -- good catch!!!
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
