From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vaishali Thakkar Subject: Re: [PATCH] smc91c92_cs : add a spinlock to avoid race condition Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:11:32 +0530 Message-ID: <57B68DFC.4070204@oracle.com> References: <1471354746-27110-1-git-send-email-andrianov@ispras.ru> <20160818.210734.1003452853595787957.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mugunthanvnm@ti.com, a@unstable.cc, felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com, fw@strlen.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ldv-project@linuxtesting.org To: David Miller , andrianov@ispras.ru Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160818.210734.1003452853595787957.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Friday 19 August 2016 09:37 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Andrianov > Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:39:06 +0300 > >> smc_reset may be executed in parallel with timer function media_check. >> To avoid data race in smc_set_xcvr a spinlock was added. >> >> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org). >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Andrianov > > This is not sufficient. > > You have to block basically the entire function, because both > smc_reset and media_check program the bank selection so could > corrupt eachother's register accesses. Hmm, but then there is a use of udelay as well. Would it be still fine to acquire a spinlock on whole function? > -- Vaishali