On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> > > +commit:
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > + if (amd_chipset.probe_count > 0) {
> > > + /* race - someone else was faster - drop devices */
> > > +
> > > + /* Mark that we where here */
> > > + amd_chipset.probe_count++;
> >
> > This line should be moved above the "if" statement, since you always
> > want to increment the count.
>
> No, probe_count can't be incremented here because the probe is not
> finished yet.
I don't follow you. Sure it is finished; this is the "commit" part of
the probe.
> If another thread jumps in after the lock is released and
> detects probe_count > 0 while the probe hasn't happened the quirk will
> fail. So we need to make sure that amd_chipset.probe_count does not
> become > 0 before the probe is finished.
I meant the increment should be done before the "if" statement but
after the spin_lock_irqsave(). That way nobody else can jump in at the
wrong time.
> > > + ret = amd_chipset.probe_result;
> > > +
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > + if (info.nb_dev)
> > > + pci_dev_put(info.nb_dev);
> > > + if (info.smbus_dev)
> > > + pci_dev_put(info.smbus_dev);
> > > +
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* no race - commit the result */
> > > + info.probe_count++;
> >
> > This isn't right, because info.probe_count was initialized to 0. Maybe
> > amd_chipset.probe_count should be made into a separate variable, not a
> > part of the structure, like amd_lock.
>
> The purpose of the struct is structuring of data. In theory all of its
> members could be turned into global variables. The amd_lock is different
> because it does not only protect the struct but also access to the
> hardware while the quirk is applied/unapplied.
Do it however you prefer. But as it stands now, the patch is wrong.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
