-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 215
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Protect SYSTIMER/TIMG shared registers #2051
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm still not convinced this is sound, as the implementors are still possible to be Sync. If one context modifies the period, and the other context modifies work_en, one of them will have a chance of restoring the other's old state. You should not avoid locking unless the register has a single bit, or the method takes
&mut self
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll make the objects not
Sync
, then use from multiple contexts would be illegal.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That kinda invalidates this whole PR and steers the users toward "slap a
Mutex<RefCell>
around everything". I would like to not do that, please.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mutex that is used for the non-S2 chips was added because multiple objects,
Unit<0>
,Unit<1>
,Comparator<0>
, etc. which could be sent to different threads/contexts, needed to modify the same register.The mutex wasn't added to allow sharing of the same object. These objects were never intended to be shared, only sent, for the reasons you described "one of them will have a chance of restoring the other's old state".
I definitely agree with you about
Mutex<RefCell>
being bad but I don't see why locking helps in the S2 case.Even if I were to wrap it in a lock. How many
LockState
objects would be necessary?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not stubbornly-refusing-to-accept your arguments here (even if I'm not ready to accept them right now), but in the context of this PR it's not technically a correct change :)