lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectIncorrect atomic usage in cx88-alsa driver
From
Date

Hi !

So I see this construct:

if (test_and_set_bit(0, &chip->opened))
return -EBUSY;

.../...

return 0;
_error:
dprintk(1,"Error opening PCM!\n");
clear_bit(0, &chip->opened);
smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
return err;

So that's basically an attempt at doing a spinlock. The problem is your
barrier is wrong at the end. Better would be:

done:
smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
clear_bit(0, &chip->opened);

Though it's still less optimal that doing:

if (!spin_trylock(...))
goto bail;

.../...

done:
spin_unlock(...)

If you really want to stick to bitops, then you may want to look at
Nick's upcoming patches adding some bitops with appropriate lock
semantics.


Cheers,
Ben.


-
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: 2007-05-08 05:29    [W:0.081 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site