On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:33:34AM +0800, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>
> 在 2019-05-30 07:11, Eduardo Valentin 写道:
> >>>>>>+
> >>>>>>+ case I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED:
> >>>>>>+ if (msg->len < MQ_MSGBUF_SIZE) {
> >>>>>>+ msg->buf[msg->len++] = *val;
> >>>>>Do we need to lock the accesses to msg->buf? how about to msg->len?
> >>>this code goes access and modify data here, e.g. msg->len and msg->buf.
> >>>
> >>>On this case (I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED), this code wont protect access.
> >>>
> >>>This can cause concurrence issues if you receive an IRQ when the user
> >>>is on your bin_read().
> >>User will not touch 'msg = mq->curr;', just touch 'msg =
> >>&mq->queue[mq->out];'
> >What happens if mq->curr == mq->queue[mq->out]?
> >
> 1. The Read will check.
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mq->lock, flags);
> + if (mq->out != mq->in) {
> + msg = &mq->queue[mq->out];
>
> 2. Flush the oldeast message. ^_^
>
> + case I2C_SLAVE_STOP:
> + if (unlikely(mq->truncated || msg->len < 2))
> + break;
> +
> + spin_lock(&mq->lock);
> + mq->in = MQ_QUEUE_NEXT(mq->in);
> + mq->curr = &mq->queue[mq->in];
> + mq->curr->len = 0;
> +
> + /* Flush the oldest message */
> + if (mq->out == mq->in)
> + mq->out = MQ_QUEUE_NEXT(mq->out);
Yeah, I see. We keep on dropping messages (old ones) when the queue is full...
> + spin_unlock(&mq->lock);
>
--
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin
