Thanks for the review,
On 01/03/18 21:24, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:58:19PM +0000, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
+static struct copp *adm_find_copp(struct q6adm *adm, int port_idx,
+ int copp_idx)
+{
+ struct copp *c;
+
+ spin_lock(&adm->copps_list_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(c, &adm->copps_list, node) {
+ if ((port_idx == c->afe_port) && (copp_idx == c->copp_idx)) {
+ spin_unlock(&adm->copps_list_lock);
+ return c;
+ }
+ }
+
+ spin_unlock(&adm->copps_list_lock);
We've again got this use of spinlocks here but no IRQ safety - what
exactly is going on with the locking? In general all of the locking in
this stuff is raising very serious alarm bells with me, I don't
understand what is being protected against what and there's some very
obvious bugs. We could probably use some documentation about what the
locking is supposed to be doing.
I agree, there are locking issues here, Am revisiting them all before I
send a next version.
+ case ADM_CMDRSP_DEVICE_OPEN_V5: {
+ copp->id = open->copp_id;
+ wake_up(&copp->wait);
+ }
+ break;
+ default:
This indentation is confusing.
I agree, will fix such instances in next version.
thanks,
srini
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
