Re: [patch 2/2] w1: unlock correct lock on error in w1_seq_show()

[David Fries]

The source code is as good as it gets, that's why I posted those two
lines from the w1.h file.  Maybe it could be expanded upon, mutex is
more for adding or removing slaves and the like modifications to
w1_master data structure, where bus_mutex is what make sure something
else doesn't try to talk on the bus while the current device is using
it.  What really matters is how other code is using the locks.  For
instance if you look at w1_therm.c bus_mutex is the only one used.
Then you look at what your routine is doing, and what the existing
routine is doing, they are both reading/writing from the one wire bus,
and then return their output to the user, so then use the same lock.
If it's the wrong lock then it's at least consistent and easier to
cleanup when someone figures out it's the wrong lock.  If you think
it's the wrong lock raise a flag and ask.

My patch review comments.

The temperature sensor uses a strong pullup or delay of 750 ms to do
the temperature conversion.  A quick read through of this sensor has
temperature conversion and EEPROM write as the only operations
requiring a significant time delay, everything else is in the us, so I
would expect this to not require any delay.

Read the comments to w1_next_pullup in w1_io.c as pullup_duration will
always be 0 in msleep(sl->master->pullup_duration); which isn't likely
what you expect.  Apparently it is working for you so that further
reinforces my previous point.

Where did the 64 come from?  I have 14 temperature sensors in my
single family residence right now, and it would take another 7 to
cover each area/room.  I could imagine an actual industrial setting to
far exceed the 64 count, but I don't work in that area so I don't know
the practical limits.  How long does it take to read if it loops
through 64 times without finding a match?  What is reg_num value if a
sensor doesn't reply?  If it is all 00's or all ff's would that be a
better test for the end of the line?  How long would it take to loop
16384 times?  Maybe you stop if it reaches 16384 or if the end of line
value is read 64 times.  I also assume this is pretty much a static
answer, so you aren't going to be querying it except once per device,
once per program setup and rarely or infrequently after that so the
time shouldn't matter too much.  Maybe the program queries again if a
sensor is detected or removed.

I would like to see some documentation (comment) at the top of
w1_seq_show as to what the sysfs number returns means.  I can see the
variable is named seq, and it returns it as a signed number.  What
does a negative value mean?  Are they expected?  Will the first device
in the chain be 0 or 1, and what defines what end that is?  What kind
of value is returned if the pins are connected as GPIO and not in the
direct sequence configuration?  Maybe it needs a comment that all
sensors of this type must be in the direct sequence configuration for
this routine to give meaningful values.  "Place all devices in CHAIN
state" that will address all devices including other types of devices,
would you expect this to cause a problem with other devices?

Line up the constants after #define to the same tab location before
w1_seq_show.

Do you plan to send in a mutex fixup patch?  In my experience gregkh's
tree only accepts patches to what is already there, he won't swap out a
patch he already has (he could as it isn't in Linus's tree, but he
doesn't).

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Matt Campbell wrote:
> David, not arguing just curious how you decide which lock to use?  Is there
> a standard documented?
> 
> --m
> 
> Matt Campbell
> MattRCampbell@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:12 AM, David Fries <David@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for including me, I'm going to have to nack this though, it is
> > an error, but bus_mutex is correct, mutex is incorrect, so the other
> > two lock/unlock in that routine are the ones that need to be changed.
> >
> > w1.h
> >  * @mutex:              protect most of w1_master
> >  * @bus_mutex:          pretect concurrent bus access
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 12:56:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Smatch complains that we don't unlock "master->mutex" on this error
> > > path.  It looks like it is a typo and we unlock ->bus_mutext where
> > > ->mutex was intended.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d9411e57dc7f ('w1: Add support for DS28EA00 sequence to w1-therm')
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c b/drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c
> > > index 3351be6..79ecaf8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c
> > > @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static ssize_t w1_seq_show(struct device *device,
> > >       c -= snprintf(buf + PAGE_SIZE - c, c, "%d\n", seq);
> > >       return PAGE_SIZE - c;
> > >  error:
> > > -     mutex_unlock(&sl->master->bus_mutex);
> > > +     mutex_unlock(&sl->master->mutex);
> > >       return -EIO;
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> > --
> > David Fries <david@xxxxxxxxx>
> >

-- 
David Fries <david@xxxxxxxxx>
--
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/