From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753553Ab0EKW2p (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 11 May 2010 18:28:45 -0400
Received: from buzzloop.caiaq.de ([212.112.241.133]:36730 "EHLO
	buzzloop.caiaq.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753368Ab0EKW2n (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 May 2010 18:28:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:28:25 +0200
From: Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de>
To: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
       Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
       Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
       Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
       Matt Reimer <mreimer@vpop.net>, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
       Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pda_power: add support for writeable properties
Message-ID: <20100511222825.GJ30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
References: <1273595926-26249-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de>
 <20100511174708.GA26777@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
 <20100511175812.GH30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
 <20100511182347.GA31831@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100511182347.GA31831@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:23:47PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 07:58:12PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> [...]
> > Hmm, no. The code defaults to (S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH) which is
> > 0444, just like it was before. So there shouldn't be any regression. The
> > mode is only changed if the psy defines a property_is_writeable()
> > callback which returns 1. Or do I miss your point?
> 
> Yes, power_supply_attrs is a global array, and you shouldn't change
> it between power_supply_register() calls.
> 
> If you don't see why it's a bad idea in general, think about it
> other way, a race:
> 
> ...someone registers psy0 with attr X marked as read-only...
> ...code flow stops before device_create_file(psy0, global->mode)..
> [preempt]
> ...someone registers psy1 with attr X marked as writable...
> ...you set up global->mode to 0644...
> [preempt again]
> ...we end up calling device_create_file(psy0, 0644)...

Ah, I see. But the struct passed in is just used as template, right? So
for the particular case you outlined, a simple lock should do the trick,
right? I would prefer this over always-writeable file entries.

Daniel