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;
Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:53:22 -0400
From:   William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
To:     David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
Cc:     jic23@kernel.org, kamel.bouhara@bootlin.com, gwendal@chromium.org,
        alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, syednwaris@gmail.com,
        patrick.havelange@essensium.com, fabrice.gasnier@st.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] counter: Add character device interface
Message-ID: <20201025175322.GA14219@shinobu>
References: <cover.1601170670.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
 <00be1fccc672c5207f3b04fe4cc09c29e22641f4.1601170670.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
 <cc1f7e4d-18d1-bc28-8ce3-e3edcd91bcab@lechnology.com>
 <20201018165822.GE231549@shinobu>
 <f2bac8b2-108d-fa4c-cb63-8ff85ce04d1f@lechnology.com>
 <20201025131809.GB3458@shinobu>
 <e0b7989f-6a99-0fae-471c-8d06c8e951b0@lechnology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e0b7989f-6a99-0fae-471c-8d06c8e951b0@lechnology.com>
Precedence: bulk


--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:34:43AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/25/20 8:18 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:06:42AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >> On 10/18/20 11:58 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:40:44PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >>>> On 9/26/20 9:18 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >>>>> +static ssize_t counter_chrdev_read(struct file *filp, char __user =
*buf,
> >>>>> +				   size_t len, loff_t *f_ps)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	struct counter_device *const counter =3D filp->private_data;
> >>>>> +	int err;
> >>>>> +	unsigned long flags;
> >>>>> +	unsigned int copied;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	if (len < sizeof(struct counter_event))
> >>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	do {
> >>>>> +		if (kfifo_is_empty(&counter->events)) {
> >>>>> +			if (filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> >>>>> +				return -EAGAIN;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +			err =3D wait_event_interruptible(counter->events_wait,
> >>>>> +					!kfifo_is_empty(&counter->events));
> >>>>> +			if (err)
> >>>>> +				return err;
> >>>>> +		}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->events_lock, flags);
> >>>>> +		err =3D kfifo_to_user(&counter->events, buf, len, &copied);
> >>>>> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->events_lock, flags);
> >>>>> +		if (err)
> >>>>> +			return err;
> >>>>> +	} while (!copied);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	return copied;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> All other uses of kfifo_to_user() I saw use a mutex instead of spin
> >>>> lock. I don't see a reason for disabling interrupts here.
> >>>
> >>> The Counter character device interface is special in this case because
> >>> counter->events could be accessed from an interrupt context. This is
> >>> possible if counter_push_event() is called for an interrupt (as is the
> >>> case for the 104_quad_8 driver). In this case, we can't use mutex
> >>> because we can't sleep in an interrupt context, so our only option is=
 to
> >>> use spin lock.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The way I understand it, locking is only needed for concurrent readers
> >> and locking between reader and writer is not needed.
> >=20
> > You're right, it does say in the kfifo.h comments that with only one
> > concurrent reader and one current write, we don't need extra locking to
> > use these macros. Because we only have one kfifo_to_user() operating on
> > counter->events, does that mean we don't need locking at all here for
> > the counter_chrdev_read() function?
> >=20
> > William Breathitt Gray
> >=20
>=20
> Even if we have the policy that only one file handle to the chrdev
> can be open at a time, it is still possible that the it could be
> read from multiple threads. So it I think it makes sense to keep
> it just to be safe.

All right, I'll keep the locks in the code for now to keep it safe in
case we have multiple threads reading.

William Breathitt Gray

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=gnpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--