Re: AW: [PATCH RT RFC v4 1/8] add generalized priority-inheritance interface

Gregory Haskins
2008-08-19T08:37:20Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1846 bytes --]

Hi Matthias,

Matthias Behr wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I got a few review comments/questions. Pls see below.
>
> Best Regards,
> Matthias
>
> P.S. I'm a kernel newbie so don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong ;-)
>
>
>> +/**
>> + * pi_sink_init - initialize a pi_sink before use
>> + * @sink: a sink context
>> + * @ops: pointer to an pi_sink_ops structure
>> + */
>> +static inline void
>> +pi_sink_init(struct pi_sink *sink, struct pi_sink_ops *ops)
>> +{
>> + atomic_set(&sink->refs, 0);
>> + sink->ops = ops;
>> +}
>>
>
> Shouldn't ops be tested for 0 here? (ASSERT/BUG_ON/...) (get's dereferenced later quite often in the form "if (sink->ops->...)".
>

This is a good idea. I will add this.

>
>> +/**
>> + * pi_sink_put - down the reference count, freeing the sink if 0
>> + * @node: the node context
>> + * @flags: optional flags to modify behavior. Reserved, must be 0.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: none
>> + */
>> +static inline void
>> +pi_sink_put(struct pi_sink *sink, unsigned int flags)
>> +{
>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&sink->refs)) {
>> + if (sink->ops->free)
>> + sink->ops->free(sink, flags);
>> + }
>> +}
>>
>
> Shouldn't the atomic/locked part cover the ...->free(...) as well?

Actually, it already does. The free can only be called by the last
reference dropping the ref-count.

> A pi_get right after the atomic_dec_and_test but before the free() could lead to a free() with refs>0?
>

A pi_get() after the ref could have already dropped to zero is broken at
a higher layer. E.g. the caller of pi_get() has to ensure that there
are no races against the reference dropping to begin with. This is the
same as any reference-counted object (for instance, see get_task_struct()).

Thanks for the review, Matthias!

Regards,
-Greg

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]