Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1281039 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-01 17:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-01 20:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-01 17:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2015-12-01 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2015-12-01 20:50 +0100
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators |
| Message-ID | <qAWhQ-3F3-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tuesday 01 December 2015 16:40:57 Mark Brown wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c > index daffff83ced2..f71db02fcb71 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static void regulator_lock_supply(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > int i; > > mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex); > - for (i = 1; rdev->supply; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > + for (i = 1; rdev; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > mutex_lock_nested(&rdev->mutex, i); > I think now we have a double lock, the initial mutex_lock() needs to be removed again. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAWrw-3Jy-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1281039 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 16:40:57 Mark Brown wrote: > > mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex); > > - for (i = 1; rdev->supply; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > > + for (i = 1; rdev; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > > mutex_lock_nested(&rdev->mutex, i); > I think now we have a double lock, the initial mutex_lock() needs to > be removed again. Ugh, I even made that fix before I sent but didn't actually commit it :(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAYWm-5oy-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1281043 |
On Tuesday 01 December 2015 16:53:01 Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 16:40:57 Mark Brown wrote: > > > > mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex); > > > - for (i = 1; rdev->supply; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > > > + for (i = 1; rdev; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++) > > > mutex_lock_nested(&rdev->mutex, i); > > > I think now we have a double lock, the initial mutex_lock() needs to > > be removed again. > > Ugh, I even made that fix before I sent but didn't actually commit it > I'm glad I'm not the only one who can screw up a trivial one-line fix to this damned function. ;-) I'm still leading with three stupid mistakes over your one though. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAZ61-5u6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1281151 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:37:35PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 16:53:01 Mark Brown wrote: > > Ugh, I even made that fix before I sent but didn't actually commit it > I'm glad I'm not the only one who can screw up a trivial one-line > fix to this damned function. ;-) > I'm still leading with three stupid mistakes over your one though. I blame the -next builds that my machine is toiling under making me skimp on testing :)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web