IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Use of atomics does not make these statements robust:
atomic_inc(&chip->opencount);
if (atomic_read(&chip->opencount) > 1 && chip->rate_set)
chip->can_set_rate=0;
and
if (atomic_read(&chip->opencount)) {
if (chip->opencount) {
changed = -EAGAIN;
} else {
changed = set_digital_mode(chip, dmode);
It would be necessary to atomically increment or decrement the value
and use the returned result. And yet we still need to prevent other
threads making use of "can_set_rate" while we set it.
However in all but one case the atomic is misleading as they are already
running with "mode_mutex" held.
Decisions are made on mode setting are often intrinsically connected
to "opencount" because some operations are not permitted unless
there is sole ownership.
So instead simplify this, and use "mode_mutex" as a lock for all reference
counting and mode setting.
Signed-off-by: Mark Hills <mark@xwax.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200708101848.3457-2-mark@xwax.org
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
027c70021b