Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:06:58 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To:     Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] mtd: core: protect access to MTD devices while
 in suspend
Message-ID: <20211213120658.45f312a6@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211213105012.65jk4rylxzncqdfy@skn-laptop>
References: <20211130132912.v6v45boce2zbnoy3@skn-laptop>
        <20211130143705.5d0404aa@collabora.com>
        <20211203143958.40645506@xps13>
        <20211209140721.6ki7gznvxwyn3cze@skn-laptop.hinnerup>
        <20211209152811.318bdf17@xps13>
        <20211210132535.gy7rqj5zblqlnz5y@skn-laptop.hadsten>
        <20211213101025.42c27b43@xps13>
        <20211213102801.569b50b1@collabora.com>
        <20211213103350.22590c13@xps13>
        <20211213105336.7be369b7@collabora.com>
        <20211213105012.65jk4rylxzncqdfy@skn-laptop>
Organization: Collabora
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:50:12 +0200
Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> wrote:

> Hi Miquel and Boris,
>=20
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:53:36AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:33:50 +0100
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >  =20
> > > Hello,
> > >=20
> > > boris.brezillon@collabora.com wrote on Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:28:01 +010=
0:
> > >  =20
> > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:10:25 +0100
> > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > >    =20
> > > > > Hi Sean,
> > > > >=20
> > > > > sean@geanix.com wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:25:35 +0100:
> > > > >      =20
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 03:28:11PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: =
      =20
> > > > > > > Hi Sean,
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > sean@geanix.com wrote on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:07:21 +0100:
> > > > > > >          =20
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 02:39:58PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wro=
te:         =20
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >            =20
> > > > > > > > > > > Fine by me, lets drop this series.           =20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > FYI I've dropped the entire series from mtd/next. I'm wai=
ting for the
> > > > > > > > > fix discussed below (without abusing the chip mutex ;-) )=
.           =20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Cool, looking forward to test a patch series :)         =20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Test? You mean "write"? :)
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Miqu=C3=A8l         =20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Hi Miquel,
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Should we us a atomic for the suspended variable?       =20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I haven't thought about it extensively, an atomic variable sound =
fine
> > > > > but I am definitely not a locking expert...     =20
> > > >=20
> > > > No need to use an atomic if the variable is already protected by a =
lock
> > > > when accessed, and this seems to be case.   =20
> > >=20
> > > Maybe there was a confusion about this lock: I think Boris just do not
> > > want the core to take any lock during a suspend operation. But you can
> > > still use locks, as long as you release them before suspending.
> > >=20
> > > And also, that chip lock might not be the one you want to take because
> > > it's been introduced for another purpose. =20
> >=20
> > Access to the suspended field is already protected by the chip lock,
> > and I think it's just fine to keep it this way. =20
>=20
> I'm reading the suspended variable in wait_event() outside the lock :/

It doesn't matter because you're checking it again with the lock held
when doing a new loop iteration.