> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:59:52AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 26. 12. 22, 7:21, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the
> > > atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They provide following distinct
> > > advantages
> > > - protect the reference counters from overflow/underflow
> > > - avoid use-after-free errors
> > > - provide improved memory ordering guarantee schemes
> > > - neater and safer.
> >
> > Really? (see below)
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c
> > ...
> > > @@ -687,23 +686,19 @@ static int dz_map_port(struct uart_port *uport)
> > > static int dz_request_port(struct uart_port *uport)
> > > {
> > > struct dz_mux *mux = to_dport(uport)->mux;
> > > - int map_guard;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - map_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->map_guard);
> > > - if (map_guard == 1) {
> > > - if (!request_mem_region(uport->mapbase, dec_kn_slot_size,
> > > - "dz")) {
> > > - atomic_add(-1, &mux->map_guard);
> > > - printk(KERN_ERR
> > > - "dz: Unable to reserve MMIO resource\n");
> > > + refcount_inc(&mux->map_guard);
> > > + if (refcount_read(&mux->map_guard) == 1) {
> >
> > This is now racy, right?
>
> Hello Jiri,
> I found this [1] commit which introduced similar transformation in a
> neighbouring driver. Can you please comment how is this different from the
> current patch proposal?
>
> [1] commit ID: 22a33651a56f ("convert sbd_duart.map_guard from atomic_t to
> refcount_t")
>
> On a side note, I have not been able to find an exact 1:1 map to the
> atomic_add_result API. I am wondering should we have one?
In past we have decided not to provide this API for refcount_t
because for truly correctly behaving reference counters it should not be needed
(vs atomics that cover a broader range of use cases).
Can you use !refcount_inc_not_zero in the above case?
Best Regards,
Elena.
