LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Karsten Keil <kkeil@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	i4ldeveloper@listserv.isdn4linux.de,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@web.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/isdn/gigaset: new M101 driver
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:42:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45C68B71.6050904@imap.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070203175623.72a171a1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3333 bytes --]

Am 04.02.2007 02:56 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:32:41 +0100 Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
> 
>>>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>>> +	cb = cs->cmdbuf;
>>>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>> It is doubtful if the locking here does anything useful.
>> It assures atomicity when reading the cs->cmdbuf pointer.
> 
> I think it's bogus.  If the quantity being copied here is more than 32-bits
> then yes, a lock is appropriate.  But if it's a single word then it's
> unlikely that the locking does anything useful.  Or there might be a bug
> here.

It's a pointer. Are reads and writes of pointer sized objects
guaranteed to be atomic on every platform? If so, I'll happily
omit the locking.

>>>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>>> +	cb->prev = cs->lastcmdbuf;
>>>> +	if (cs->lastcmdbuf)
>>>> +		cs->lastcmdbuf->next = cb;
>>>> +	else {
>>>> +		cs->cmdbuf = cb;
>>>> +		cs->curlen = len;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	cs->cmdbytes += len;
>>>> +	cs->lastcmdbuf = cb;
>>>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
>>> Would the use of list_heads simplify things here?
>> I don't think so. The operations in list.h do not keep track of
>> the total byte count, and adding that in a race-free way appears
>> non-trivial.
> 
> Maintaining a byte count isn't related to maintaining a list.

Sure. But your question was whether the list.h operations would
simplify this code. AFAICS it wouldn't, because the necessity
of maintaining the byte count would complicate a list.h based
solution beyond the current one. Also, this is part of the
interface with the components of the Gigaset driver which are
already part of the kernel. Changing this to a list_head now
would require significant changes in those other parts, too.

>>>> +	tail = atomic_read(&inbuf->tail);
>>>> +	head = atomic_read(&inbuf->head);
>>>> +	gig_dbg(DEBUG_INTR, "buffer state: %u -> %u, receive %u bytes",
>>>> +		head, tail, count);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (head <= tail) {
>>>> +		n = RBUFSIZE - tail;
>>>> +		if (count >= n) {
>>>> +			/* buffer wraparound */
>>>> +			memcpy(inbuf->data + tail, buf, n);
>>>> +			tail = 0;
>>>> +			buf += n;
>>>> +			count -= n;
>>>> +		} else {
>>>> +			memcpy(inbuf->data + tail, buf, count);
>>>> +			tail += count;
>>>> +			buf += count;
>>>> +			count = 0;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>> Perhaps the (fairly revolting) circ_buf.h can be used for this stuff.
>> It probably could, but IMHO readability would suffer rather than improve.
> 
> How about kernel/kfifo.c?

That would indeed fit the bill. But again, this code matches
parts of drivers/isdn/gigaset which are already in the kernel,
and changing it here would require significant corresponding
changes in those other parts.

I'll gladly consider your last two propositions (list_head for
cs->lastcmdbuf and kfifo for cs->inbuf) for a future revision of
the entire set of drivers in drivers/isdn/gigaset, but it goes
way beyond the scope of the present patch, which merely aims at
adding the missing M101 hardware driver.

Thanks,
Tilman

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                          E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-05  1:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <200702012112.l11LCOO4016557@lx1.pxnet.com>
2007-02-02  1:13 ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-03 16:09   ` Greg KH
2007-02-04  0:26     ` Tilman Schmidt
2007-02-12 18:47       ` Greg KH
2007-02-12 23:49         ` Tilman Schmidt
2007-02-04  1:32   ` Tilman Schmidt
2007-02-04  1:56     ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-05  1:42       ` Tilman Schmidt [this message]
2007-02-05  4:58         ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-05 12:29           ` Tilman Schmidt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45C68B71.6050904@imap.cc \
    --to=tilman@imap.cc \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=hjlipp@web.de \
    --cc=i4ldeveloper@listserv.isdn4linux.de \
    --cc=kkeil@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] drivers/isdn/gigaset: new M101 driver' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).