On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:48 PM Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:33:08PM -0700, Tri Vo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:12 PM Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > +static ssize_t wakeup_source_count_show(struct wakeup_source *ws,
> > > > + struct wakeup_source_attribute
> > > > *attr,
> > > > + char *buf)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + unsigned long var;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ws->lock, flags);
> > > > + if (strcmp(attr->attr.name, "active_count") == 0)
> > > > + var = ws->active_count;
> > > > + else if (strcmp(attr->attr.name, "event_count") == 0)
> > > > + var = ws->event_count;
> > > > + else if (strcmp(attr->attr.name, "wakeup_count") == 0)
> > > > + var = ws->wakeup_count;
> > > > + else
> > > > + var = ws->expire_count;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ws->lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + return sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", var);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Why is this lock always needed to be grabbed? You are just reading a
> > > value, who cares if it changes inbetween reading it and returning the
> > > buffer string as it can change at that point in time anyway?
> >
> > Right, we don't care if the value changes in between us reading and
> > printing it. However, IIUC not grabbing this lock results in a data
> > race, which is undefined behavior.
>
> A data race where? Writing to the value? How can that happen? All you
> are doing is incrementing this variable elsewhere, what is the worst
> that can happen?
Ok, I'll remove the locks.
