lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/17] fuse: add number of waiting requests attribute
Andrew Morton a écrit :
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>> + /** The number of requests waiting for completion */
>> + atomic_t num_waiting;
>
> This doesn't get initialised anywhere.
>
> Presumably you're relying on a memset somewhere. That might work on all
> architectures, AFAIK. But in theory it's wrong. If, for example, the
> architecture implements atomic_t via a spinlock-plus-integer, and that
> spinlock's unlocked state is not all-bits-zero, we're dead.
>
> So we should initialise it with
>
> foo->num_waiting = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>
>
>
> nb: it is not correct to initialise an atomic_t with
>
> atomic_set(a, 0);
>
> because in the above theoretical case case where the arch uses a spinlock
> in the atomic_t, that spinlock doesn't get initialised. I bet we've got code
> in there which does this.

Hum... I tracked one missing atomic_set() or ATOMIC_INIT in e1000 driver then.

e1000_alloc_queues() does :

#ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
size = sizeof(struct net_device) * adapter->num_queues;
adapter->polling_netdev = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!adapter->polling_netdev) {
kfree(adapter->tx_ring);
kfree(adapter->rx_ring);
return -ENOMEM;
}
memset(adapter->polling_netdev, 0, size);
#endif

So this driver clearly assumes a memset(... 0 ...) also initialize atomic_t to
0 ((struct net_device *)->refcnt for example)

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-18 06:59    [W:0.438 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site