On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:07:47PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/15/15 07:26, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > clk_core_enable is executed without &enable_clock in clk_set_parent
> > function.
> > Adding it to avoid potential race condition issue.
> >
> > Fixes: 035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk
> > instances")
> > Cc: Mike Turquette <mturque...@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.d...@freescale.com>
> > ---
>
> Can you please describe the race condition? From what I can tell there
> is not a race condition here and we've gone around on this part of the
> code before to fix any race conditions.
>
Do you mean we do not need to acquire enable lock when execute clk_core_enable
in set_parent function? Can you help explain a bit more why?
The clk doc looks to me says the enable lock should be held across calls to
the .enable, .disable and .is_enabled operations.
And before the commit
035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances"),
all the clk_enable/disable in set_parent() is executed with lock.
A rough thinking of race condition is assuming Thread A calls
clk_set_parent(x, y) while Thread B calls clk_enable(x), clock x is disabled
but prepared initially, due to clk_core_enable in set_parent() is not
executed with enable clock, the clk_core_enable may be reentrant during
the locking time executed by B.
Won't this be a race condition?
Regards
Dong Aisheng
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
