Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:11:12 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] test_firmware: add partial read support for
 request_firmware_into_buf
Message-ID: <20200225191112.GX11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
References: <20200220004825.23372-1-scott.branden@broadcom.com>
 <20200220004825.23372-4-scott.branden@broadcom.com>
 <20200220084255.GW7838@kadam>
 <9afab7f8-1b5f-a7bb-6b76-f7b19efb2979@broadcom.com>
 <4a666590-461d-17f9-5580-31a41869383f@broadcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4a666590-461d-17f9-5580-31a41869383f@broadcom.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:13:08PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
> > > > +static ssize_t test_dev_config_show_size_t(char *buf, int cfg)
> > > > +{
> > > > +??? size_t val;
> > > > +
> > > > +??? mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> > > > +??? val = cfg;
> > > > +??? mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
> > > Both val and cfg are stack variables so there is no need for locking.
> > > Probably you meant to pass a pointer to cfg?
> I am following the existing code as was done for
> test_dev_config_show_bool(),
> test_dev_config_show_int(),
> test_dev_config_show_u8()
> 
> Mutex probably not needed but I don't think I need to deviate from the rest
> of the test code.
> 
> Luis, could you please explain what the rest of your code is doing?

The lock is indeed not needed in the functions you mentioned, so you can
also remove the other locks as a precursor patch. It would be a seperate
patch.

  Luis