From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [RFC] rfkill - Add support for input key to control wireless radio Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:20:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1165173618.3233.243.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <200612031936.34343.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, John Linville , Jiri Benc , Lennart Poettering , Johannes Berg , Larry Finger Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:30642 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760018AbWLCTUU (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:20:20 -0500 To: Ivo van Doorn In-Reply-To: <200612031936.34343.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 19:36 +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > +static int rfkill_open(struct input_dev *dev) > +{ > + ((struct rfkill_key*)(dev->private))->open_count++; > + return 0; > +} Hi, this open_count thing smells fishy to me; what are the locking rules for it? What guarantees that the readers of it don't get the value changed underneath them between looking at the value and doing whatever action depends on it's value ? Greetings, Arjan van de Ven -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org