On Friday, September 24, 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:50:40AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
...
>
> Looks like a good start!!! Some questions and suggestions about RCU
> usage interspersed below.
...
> > + * Locking: RCU reader.
> > + */
> > +int opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> > + struct opp *temp_opp;
> > + int count = 0;
> > +
> > + dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
> > + if (IS_ERR(dev_opp))
> > + return PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(temp_opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) {
> > + if (temp_opp->available)
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> This one is OK as well. You are returning a count, so if all of the
> counted structures are freed at this point, no problem. The count was
> valid when it was accumulated, and the fact that it might now be obsolete
> is (usually) not a problem.
However, it looks like it should run rcu_read_lock() before calling
find_device_opp(dev), shouldn't it?
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
