From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756951Ab0IYU4S (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:56:18 -0400
Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:41404 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756037Ab0IYU4Q (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:56:16 -0400
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] power: introduce library for device-specific OPPs
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:55:20 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-rc5-rjw+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        "linux-pm" <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-omap" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1285332640-16736-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20100924193742.GJ2375@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100924193742.GJ2375@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201009252255.20933.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday, September 24, 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:50:40AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
...
> 
> Looks like a good start!!!  Some questions and suggestions about RCU
> usage interspersed below.
...
> > + * Locking: RCU reader.
> > + */
> > +int opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> > +	struct opp *temp_opp;
> > +	int count = 0;
> > +
> > +	dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(dev_opp))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(temp_opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) {
> > +		if (temp_opp->available)
> > +			count++;
> > +	}
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> This one is OK as well.  You are returning a count, so if all of the
> counted structures are freed at this point, no problem.  The count was
> valid when it was accumulated, and the fact that it might now be obsolete
> is (usually) not a problem.

However, it looks like it should run rcu_read_lock() before calling
find_device_opp(dev), shouldn't it?

Rafael