The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the
atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They provide following distinct
advantages:
- protect the reference counters from overflow/underflow
- avoid use-after-free errors
- provide improved memory ordering guarantee schemes
- neater and safer.
Hence, replace the atomic_* APIs by their equivalent refcount_t
API functions.
This patch proposal address the following warnings generated by
the atomic_as_refcounter.cocci coccinelle script
atomic_add_return(-1, ...)
Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
---
Please Note:
1. The patch is compile tested using dec_station.defconfig for MIPS architecture.
2. This patch should be applied after patch 1/2 of this series due to
dependency.
Changes in v3:
1. Include the individual patches in a series and highlight dependency.
Feedback provided by gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Changes in v2:
1. Separate the combined change into one variable per patch as
suggested by gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
drivers/tty/serial/dz.c | 17 ++++++-----------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c
index b70edc248f8b..0aa59a9beeb7 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c
@@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
#include <linux/tty.h>
#include <linux/tty_flip.h>
-#include <linux/atomic.h>
#include <linux/refcount.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <asm/bootinfo.h>
@@ -77,7 +76,7 @@ struct dz_port {
struct dz_mux {
struct dz_port dport[DZ_NB_PORT];
refcount_t map_guard;
- atomic_t irq_guard;
+ refcount_t irq_guard;
int initialised;
};
@@ -400,18 +399,16 @@ static int dz_startup(struct uart_port *uport)
struct dz_port *dport = to_dport(uport);
struct dz_mux *mux = dport->mux;
unsigned long flags;
- int irq_guard;
int ret;
u16 tmp;
- irq_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->irq_guard);
- if (irq_guard != 1)
+ refcount_inc(&mux->irq_guard);
+ if (refcount_read(&mux->irq_guard) != 1)
return 0;
- ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt,
- IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux);
+ ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux);
if (ret) {
- atomic_add(-1, &mux->irq_guard);
+ refcount_dec(&mux->irq_guard);
printk(KERN_ERR "dz: Cannot get IRQ %d!\n", dport->port.irq);
return ret;
}
@@ -441,15 +438,13 @@ static void dz_shutdown(struct uart_port *uport)
struct dz_port *dport = to_dport(uport);
struct dz_mux *mux = dport->mux;
unsigned long flags;
- int irq_guard;
u16 tmp;
spin_lock_irqsave(&dport->port.lock, flags);
dz_stop_tx(&dport->port);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dport->port.lock, flags);
- irq_guard = atomic_add_return(-1, &mux->irq_guard);
- if (!irq_guard) {
+ if (refcount_dec_and_test(&mux->irq_guard)) {
/* Disable interrupts. */
tmp = dz_in(dport, DZ_CSR);
tmp &= ~(DZ_RIE | DZ_TIE);
--
2.34.1
On 26. 12. 22, 7:21, Deepak R Varma wrote: > The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the > atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They provide following distinct > advantages: > - protect the reference counters from overflow/underflow > - avoid use-after-free errors > - provide improved memory ordering guarantee schemes > - neater and safer. > Hence, replace the atomic_* APIs by their equivalent refcount_t > API functions. > > This patch proposal address the following warnings generated by > the atomic_as_refcounter.cocci coccinelle script > atomic_add_return(-1, ...) ... > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c ... > @@ -400,18 +399,16 @@ static int dz_startup(struct uart_port *uport) > struct dz_port *dport = to_dport(uport); > struct dz_mux *mux = dport->mux; > unsigned long flags; > - int irq_guard; > int ret; > u16 tmp; > > - irq_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->irq_guard); > - if (irq_guard != 1) > + refcount_inc(&mux->irq_guard); > + if (refcount_read(&mux->irq_guard) != 1) > return 0; > > - ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, > - IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > + ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); How is this related to the above described change? -- js suse labs
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:00:48AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 26. 12. 22, 7:21, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the > > atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They provide following distinct > > advantages: > > - protect the reference counters from overflow/underflow > > - avoid use-after-free errors > > - provide improved memory ordering guarantee schemes > > - neater and safer. > > Hence, replace the atomic_* APIs by their equivalent refcount_t > > API functions. > > > > This patch proposal address the following warnings generated by > > the atomic_as_refcounter.cocci coccinelle script > > atomic_add_return(-1, ...) > ... > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > ... > > @@ -400,18 +399,16 @@ static int dz_startup(struct uart_port *uport) > > struct dz_port *dport = to_dport(uport); > > struct dz_mux *mux = dport->mux; > > unsigned long flags; > > - int irq_guard; > > int ret; > > u16 tmp; > > > > - irq_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->irq_guard); > > - if (irq_guard != 1) > > + refcount_inc(&mux->irq_guard); > > + if (refcount_read(&mux->irq_guard) != 1) > > return 0; > > > > - ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, > > - IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > > + ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > > How is this related to the above described change? No, it is not. My apologies. I must have joined the lines for improved readability and forgot to revert. I will restore this in next revision based on the feedback on the other patch of this series. OR I can include this change in the current change log as a "while at it..." statement. Would you advise me? Thank you, ./drv > > -- > js > suse labs >
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:39:17PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:00:48AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > On 26. 12. 22, 7:21, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > > The refcount_* APIs are designed to address known issues with the > > > atomic_t APIs for reference counting. They provide following distinct > > > advantages: > > > - protect the reference counters from overflow/underflow > > > - avoid use-after-free errors > > > - provide improved memory ordering guarantee schemes > > > - neater and safer. > > > Hence, replace the atomic_* APIs by their equivalent refcount_t > > > API functions. > > > > > > This patch proposal address the following warnings generated by > > > the atomic_as_refcounter.cocci coccinelle script > > > atomic_add_return(-1, ...) > > ... > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/dz.c > > ... > > > @@ -400,18 +399,16 @@ static int dz_startup(struct uart_port *uport) > > > struct dz_port *dport = to_dport(uport); > > > struct dz_mux *mux = dport->mux; > > > unsigned long flags; > > > - int irq_guard; > > > int ret; > > > u16 tmp; > > > > > > - irq_guard = atomic_add_return(1, &mux->irq_guard); > > > - if (irq_guard != 1) > > > + refcount_inc(&mux->irq_guard); > > > + if (refcount_read(&mux->irq_guard) != 1) > > > return 0; > > > > > > - ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, > > > - IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > > > + ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > > > > How is this related to the above described change? > > No, it is not. My apologies. I must have joined the lines for improved readability > and forgot to revert. I will restore this in next revision based on the feedback > on the other patch of this series. OR I can include this change in the current > change log as a "while at it..." statement. Would you advise me? NEVER have a "while at it..." change as part of a commit unless it is relevant to the main change being made. You know better... thanks, greg k-h
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:28:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:39:17PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:00:48AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > On 26. 12. 22, 7:21, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > > > + ret = request_irq(dport->port.irq, dz_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "dz", mux); > > > > > > How is this related to the above described change? > > > > No, it is not. My apologies. I must have joined the lines for improved readability > > and forgot to revert. I will restore this in next revision based on the feedback > > on the other patch of this series. OR I can include this change in the current > > change log as a "while at it..." statement. Would you advise me? > > NEVER have a "while at it..." change as part of a commit unless it is > relevant to the main change being made. You know better... Sounds very good. Thank you for the advise. I will revert the change in the next revision. Thank you, ./drv > > thanks, > > greg k-h
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.