From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@gmail.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:11:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161115051106.u2xoduwf2kpcznv3@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161115043001.GA22482@obsidianresearch.com>
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:30:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:44:58PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Use atomic bitops for chip->flags so that we do not need chip->is_open
> > and chip->duration_adjusted anymore.
>
> I don't know if it s a really great idea to use atomic bit ops for
> things that do not need to be atomic.. It makes the locking scheme
> less clear. is open is genuinely different since it relies on the
> atomic for correctness.
The way I see it is one of the status flags bound to chip among the
others. I do not see this cause too much harm for clarity. It eases
debugging the driver a bit because you get more state out of 'flags'.
It also makes code little a bit more robust as flags is independent of
locks.
How strong is your opposition here? I do not see any exceptional damage
done but see some subtle but still significant benefits.
> Merging is_duration makes lots of sense though
Also timeout_adjusted should be merged (for some reason missed it).
> Jason
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-15 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 23:44 [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-11-15 4:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-11-15 5:11 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2016-11-16 5:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-11-16 22:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-11-17 10:40 ` [tpmdd-devel] " Nayna
2016-11-17 17:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161115051106.u2xoduwf2kpcznv3@intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christophe.ricard@gmail.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).