Re: [PATCH 1/1] Misc: phantom, move to unlocked_ioctl

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/18/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:34:53 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> wrote:

> @@ -118,7 +125,9 @@ static int phantom_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, u_int cmd,
>               if (r.reg > 7)
>                       return -EINVAL;
>
> +             spin_lock(&dev->ioctl_lock);
>               r.value = ioread32(dev->iaddr + r.reg);
> +             spin_unlock(&dev->ioctl_lock);

What is that locking protecting in here?

Well, what led me to do it is that I didn't know how much atomic are
ioread and iowrite. If concurrent process writes something to the
place in that space while the other one is reading it, doesn't matter,
correct?

thanks,
--
http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/            Jiri Slaby
faculty of informatics, masaryk university, brno, cz
e-mail: jirislaby gmail com, gpg pubkey fingerprint:
B674 9967 0407 CE62 ACC8  22A0 32CC 55C3 39D4 7A7E
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux