Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200724183954.1.I2e29ae25368ba8a72a9e44121cfbc36ead8ecc6b@changeid>
 <20200728151258.1222876-1-campello@chromium.org> <20200728091057.10.Ibe84fae61cd914c116e6d59ffeb644f1cbecd601@changeid>
 <159596523705.1360974.7169089810545711557@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <CAHcu+VbYrbWStNNaidDygY=d4f6F5tXUxWtsuH0x3oVeELGWVA@mail.gmail.com> <159597194837.1360974.9212489704079396891@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <159597194837.1360974.9212489704079396891@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
From:   Daniel Campello <campello@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:06:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHcu+VZ032uZ==-Lqix=x61pdurNXjOiKvrKTaKJqUyUgn8OGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] iio: sx9310: Simplify error return handling
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Enrico Granata <egranata@chromium.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:32 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Campello (2020-07-28 14:23:29)
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:40 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Daniel Campello (2020-07-28 08:12:53)
> > > > @@ -368,13 +368,13 @@ static int sx9310_wait_for_sample(struct sx9310_data *data)
> > > >  static int sx9310_read_proximity(struct sx9310_data *data,
> > > >                                  const struct iio_chan_spec *chan, int *val)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       int ret = 0;
> > > > +       int ret;
> > > >         __be16 rawval;
> > > >
> > > >         mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
> > > >
> > > >         ret = sx9310_get_read_channel(data, chan->channel);
> > > > -       if (ret < 0)
> > > > +       if (ret)
> > > >                 goto out;
> > > >
> > > >         if (data->client->irq) {
> > > > @@ -394,11 +394,11 @@ static int sx9310_read_proximity(struct sx9310_data *data,
> > > >
> > > >         mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
> > > >
> > > > -       if (ret < 0)
> > > > +       if (ret)
> > > >                 goto out_disable_irq;
> > >
> > > Why is this condition checked after grabbing the mutex? Shouldn't it be
> > > checked before grabbing the mutex? Or is that supposed to be a
> > > mutex_unlock()?
> > We acquire the lock before jumping to out_disable_irq which is before
> > a mutex_unlock()
>
> Does this function need to hold the mutex lock around get/put_read_channel?
Yes, both get/put_read_channel and get/put_event_channel use
sx9310_update_chan_en which is updating data->chan_{read,event}
bitmaps.
> It drops the lock while waiting and then regrabs it which seems to
> imply that another reader could come in and try to get the channel again
> during the wait. So put another way, it may be simpler to shorten the
> lock area and then bail out of this function to a place where the lock
> isn't held already on the return path.