From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: Ankit Pandey <itsankitkp@gmail.com>
Cc: kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Need guidance regarding fixing styleguide error in rtl871x_pwrctrl.h
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 11:36:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <76570.1644424594@turing-police> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALbMxBxS=ku3mY80VXhwGLhPhH220fWbuZFZ7GKjRc2DxEJ+Fg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 23:26:54 +0530, Ankit Pandey said:
> And I was asked to verify if there is some specific meaning is attached to
> comment here (which was causing the issue).
> I would be glad you could explain me how should I approach this issue? One
> way would
> be to rewrite that these variables could be defined as volatile (just add a
> comment) and then compile driver and see that build goes through without
> any error.
It turns out that the C keyword 'volatile' usually doesn't actually do what
needs to happen if a variable actually *is* volatile and subject to change
while the executing thread isn't looking.
There's a good documentation file on this:
Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
But in summary - "If you thought you needed 'volatile' in your code, you
probably needed locking primitives instead".
> Other way would be that try to understand what this function is supposed to
> be doing and then figure out author's intent of putting volatile there. How
> should I take decision on these (or if they are wrong approaches) ?
Given that struct pwrctlr_priv already contains a mutex_lock, what was
probably *intended* was "the variables cpwm, tog, cpwm_tog, and tgt_rpwm are
protected by the mutex_lock and may only be changed by the mutex holder, while
pwr_mode, smart_ps, and alives are not subject to change on the fly".
But actually reading and understanding the code would be required to verify
that.
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-09 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CALbMxBxHhhaFGvtxxtfVsgv_PqEHgV-5SU=Xy8b_=y8OBeW_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
2022-02-08 17:56 ` Fwd: Need guidance regarding fixing styleguide error in rtl871x_pwrctrl.h Ankit Pandey
2022-02-09 9:32 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2022-02-09 16:36 ` Valdis Klētnieks [this message]
2022-02-09 16:40 ` Fwd: " Ankit Pandey
2022-02-09 20:49 ` Jeffrey Walton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=76570.1644424594@turing-police \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=itsankitkp@gmail.com \
--cc=kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox