/*
* oxfw_proc.c - a part of driver for OXFW970/971 based devices
*
* Copyright (c) 2014 Takashi Sakamoto
*
* Licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.
*/
#include "./oxfw.h"
static void proc_read_formation(struct snd_info_entry *entry,
struct snd_info_buffer *buffer)
{
struct snd_oxfw *oxfw = entry->private_data;
struct snd_oxfw_stream_formation formation, curr;
u8 *format;
char flag;
int i, err;
/* Show input. */
err = snd_oxfw_stream_get_current_formation(oxfw,
AVC_GENERAL_PLUG_DIR_IN,
&curr);
if (err < 0)
return;
snd_iprintf(buffer, "Input Stream to device:\n");
snd_iprintf(buffer, "\tRate\tPCM\tMIDI\n");
for (i = 0; i < SND_OXFW_STREAM_FORMAT_ENTRIES; i++) {
format = oxfw->rx_stream_formats[i];
if (format == NULL)
continue;
err = snd_oxfw_stream_parse_format(format, &formation);
if (err < 0)
continue;
if (memcmp(&formation, &curr, sizeof(curr)) == 0)
flag = '*';
else
flag = ' ';
snd_iprintf(buffer, "%c\t%d\t%d\t%d\n", flag,
formation.rate, formation.pcm, formation.midi);
}
if (!oxfw->has_output)
return;
/* Show output. */
err = snd_oxfw_stream_get_current_formation(oxfw,
AVC_GENERAL_PLUG_DIR_OUT,
&curr);
if (err < 0)
return;
snd_iprintf(buffer, "Output Stream from device:\n");
snd_iprintf(buffer, "\tRate\tPCM\tMIDI\n");
for (i = 0; i < SND_OXFW_STREAM_FORMAT_ENTRIES; i++) {
format = oxfw->tx_stream_formats[i];
if (format == NULL)
continue;
err = snd_oxfw_stream_parse_format(format, &formation);
if (err < 0)
continue;
if (memcmp(&formation, &curr, sizeof(curr)) == 0)
flag = '*';
else
flag = ' ';
snd_iprintf(buffer, "%c\t%d\t%d\t%d\n", flag,
formation.rate, formation.pcm, formation.midi);
}
}
static void add_node(struct snd_oxfw *oxfw, struct snd_info_entry *root,
const char *name,
void (*op)(struct snd_info_entry *e,
struct snd_info_buffer *b))
{
struct snd_info_entry *entry;
entry = snd_info_create_card_entry(oxfw->card, name, root);
if (entry == NULL)
return;
snd_info_set_text_ops(entry, oxfw, op);
if (snd_info_register(entry) < 0)
snd_info_free_entry(entry);
}
void snd_oxfw_proc_init(struct snd_oxfw *oxfw)
{
struct snd_info_entry *root;
/*
* All nodes are automatically removed at snd_card_disconnect(),
* by following to link list.
*/
root = snd_info_create_card_entry(oxfw->card, "firewire",
oxfw->card->proc_root);
if (root == NULL)
return;
root->mode = S_IFDIR | S_IRUGO | S_IXUGO;
if (snd_info_register(root) < 0) {
snd_info_free_entry(root);
return;
}
add_node(oxfw, root, "formation", proc_read_formation);
}
ffb83e44e5ff1843e932592525fc2bff23ff'>root/include/trace/events/devlink.h
Age | Commit message (Expand) | Author | Files | Lines |
.c
dmaengine: pl330: fix double lock
The static bug finder EBA (http://www.iagoabal.eu/eba/) reported the
following double-lock bug:
Double lock:
1. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at pl330_free_chan_resources:2236;
2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after;
3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753;
4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505.
I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski.
First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions
`pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids
the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'.
NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes
`list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock',
whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by
`pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly
`pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under
`pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'.
Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and
`pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is
only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already
held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from
`pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from
`pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of
`pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there
cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points.
Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu>
Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>