Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <03944e4e-d57d-4442-b38d-e36e20cb5ae3@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:39:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] thermal: Drop redundant and confusing
 device_is_registered() checks
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
References: <1880915.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher> <8315317.T7Z3S40VBb@kreacher>
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <8315317.T7Z3S40VBb@kreacher>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 08/12/2023 20:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> Multiple places in the thermal subsystem (most importantly, sysfs
> attribute callback functions) check if the given thermal zone device is
> still registered in order to return early in case the device_del() in
> thermal_zone_device_unregister() has run already.
> 
> However, after thermal_zone_device_unregister() has been made wait for
> all of the zone-related activity to complete before returning, it is
> not necessary to do that any more, because all of the code holding a
> reference to the thermal zone device object will be waited for even if
> it does not do anything special to enforce this.
> 
> Accordingly, drop all of the device_is_registered() checks that are now
> redundant and get rid of the zone locking that is not necessary any more
> after dropping them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---

[ ... ]

> @@ -132,11 +120,6 @@ trip_point_temp_store(struct device *dev
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
>   
> -	if (!device_is_registered(dev)) {
> -		ret = -ENODEV;
> -		goto unlock;
> -	}
> -
>   	trip = &tz->trips[trip_id];
>   
>   	if (temp != trip->temperature) {
> @@ -162,23 +145,12 @@ trip_point_temp_show(struct device *dev,
>   		     char *buf)
>   {
>   	struct thermal_zone_device *tz = to_thermal_zone(dev);
> -	int trip_id, temp;
> +	int trip_id;
>   
>   	if (sscanf(attr->attr.name, "trip_point_%d_temp", &trip_id) != 1)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
> -
> -	if (!device_is_registered(dev)) {
> -		mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
> -		return -ENODEV;
> -	}
> -
> -	temp = tz->trips[trip_id].temperature;
> -
> -	mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
> -
> -	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", temp);
> +	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", tz->trips[trip_id].temperature);

Without the lock, could the trip_temp_store() make the value change 
while we read it?

[ ... ]

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog