Re: [PATCH] LDT - Linux Driver Template

[Constantine Shulyupin]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Ryan Mallon <rmallon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14/11/12 05:46, Constantine Shulyupin wrote:
>> From: Constantine Shulyupin <const@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> +     if (kfifo_is_empty(&in_fifo)) {
>
> Doesn't this require locking against whatever is filling the fifo?
I seems doesn't.
Note from include/linux/kfifo.h
/*
 * Note about locking : There is no locking required until only * one reader
 * and one writer is using the fifo and no kfifo_reset() will be * called
 *  kfifo_reset_out() can be safely used, until it will be only called
 * in the reader thread.
 *  For multiple writer and one reader there is only a need to lock the writer.
 * And vice versa for only one writer and multiple reader there is only a need
 * to lock the reader.
 */

>> +     if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&read_lock)) {
> The read_lock is only used here, so would only protect against
> concurrent reads. Isn't the read for a device function already
> synchronised against itself by the caller?
I can't find locking for read/write in sys_read, vfs_read
I just found lock misc_mtx for misc_open, misc_register.

>> +     ret = kfifo_from_user(&out_fifo, buf, count, &copied);
> Shouldn't this function be grabbing fifo_lock to prevent concurrent
> access to the fifo by the tasklet function? write_lock has the same
> issues described for read_lock above.

Accordingly note about kfifo locking is shouldn't.
kfifo supports asynchronous i/o.

Thank you.
--
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/