Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] ptp: introduce programmable pins.

[David Miller]

From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:43:08 +0100

> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:25:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> 
>> This locking seems unnecessarily complex to me.  You should be able to
>> do the stateless sanity checks, take the mutex, then do all of the
>> rest of the operations until the end of the function before
>> dropping the lock.
>> 
>> So just take the lock once over the operations that need it.
> 
> The idea was to avoid holding the mutex when invoking the driver
> callbacks (.verify and .enable). Mostly this is my paranoia that some
> bad driver will call back into the core via ptp_set_pinfunc().

During my review, I checked all the implementations of said methods
and they all universally adjust software state and return.

> But you are right that the result is overly complex. I'll make the
> callers of ptp_set_pinfunc hold the mutex, and so the set path will
> look just like the get path.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/