From: Herbert Valerio Riedel Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:29:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 3/5] hwmon: (gl518sm) Refactor fan functions Message-Id: <1196000984.7343.28.camel@pbook.intra> List-Id: References: <20071022174642.3c3ce8f0@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20071022174642.3c3ce8f0@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org hello! On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 14:08 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > +static ssize_t show_fan_input(struct device *dev, > > > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > > > +{ > > > + int nr = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr)->index; > > > + struct gl518_data *data = gl518_update_device(dev); > > > + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", FAN_FROM_REG(data->fan_in[nr], > > > + DIV_FROM_REG(data->fan_div[nr]))); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static ssize_t show_fan_min(struct device *dev, > > > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > > > +{ > > > + int nr = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr)->index; > > > + struct gl518_data *data = gl518_update_device(dev); > > > + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", FAN_FROM_REG(data->fan_min[nr], > > > + DIV_FROM_REG(data->fan_div[nr]))); > > > +} one thing just sprang to my mind... is it safe to assume that the expressions data->fan_min[nr] and data->fan_div[nr] are evaluated atomically? or to put it differently, why don't we need a rw-lock here to protect against interleaved updates? cheers, hvr _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors