Paul E. McKenney had written, on 09/25/2010 07:56 PM, the following:
> 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
dev_opp as discussed before is safe as it is never freed
(find_device_opp uses it's own rcu_read_lock, the rcu_read_lock in this
context is for the opp list. what am I missing?
ack on Paul's comments w.r.t risk on opp structures itself.. will look
to fix that in v5.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
