Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:55:56 +0100
Message-ID: <s5hzgq2j6kj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To:     Vaibhav Agarwal <vaibhav.sr@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
        "moderated list:GREYBUS SUBSYSTEM" <greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: Add missing rwsem around snd_ctl_remove() calls
In-Reply-To: <CAAs364-thiqACMRwT++JMxkMd7qa_stFApjK-4SmrEJetX6oyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20211116072027.18466-1-tiwai@suse.de>
        <07e228eb-676a-bdb1-c2ec-a96f691f5a18@linaro.org>
        <s5h5ysqlcm8.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <b0d2b643-214a-07c5-96b7-4845c54cba72@linaro.org>
        <CAAs364-thiqACMRwT++JMxkMd7qa_stFApjK-4SmrEJetX6oyw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 04:32:40 +0100,
Vaibhav Agarwal wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:25 AM Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/17/21 3:02 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:56:14 +0100,
> > > Alex Elder wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 11/16/21 1:20 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >>> snd_ctl_remove() has to be called with card->controls_rwsem held (when
> > >>> called after the card instantiation).  This patch adds the missing
> > >>> rwsem calls around it.
> > >>
> > >> I see the comment above snd_ctl_remove() that says you must hold
> > >> the write lock.  And given that, this seems correct to me.
> > >>
> > >> I understand why you want to take the lock just once, rather
> > >> than each time snd_ctl_remove() is called.
> > >>
> > >> However I believe the acquisition and release of the lock
> > >> belongs inside gbaudio_remove_controls(), not in its caller.
> > >>
> > >> If you disagree, can you please explain why?
> > >
> > > In general if the function returns an error and has a loop inside,
> > > taking a lock in the caller side avoids the forgotten unlock.
> >
> > But taking the lock in the called function makes the
> > caller not need to take the lock (which would be even
> > more valuable if there were more than one caller).
> >
> > I prefer having the lock acquisition in the called
> > function.  Please send version 2, as I suggested.
> 
> 
> Hi Takashi,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this patch. In reference to the suggestion from Alex,
> do you think replacing snd_ctl_find_id(), snd_ctl_remove() with
> snd_ctl_remove_id() inside gbaudio_remove_controls() would be an even
> better choice without worrying about locks?

Yeah, that sounds like a better plan, indeed.


Takashi