linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] gpiolib: Allow GPIO chips to request their own GPIOs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140227094802.GI5018@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:48:02 +0200
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Alan Cox <alan.cox@...el.com>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] gpiolib: Allow GPIO chips to request their own GPIOs

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:47:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Sounds good. Only thing I'm not sure about is the fact that
> > __gpiod_request() releases the lock when it calls chip driver callbacks
> > (and takes it back of course). Is that acceptable practice to take the lock
> > outside of a function and release it inside for a while?
> 
> Yes, you can do that.
> 
> There even are sparse annotations for that: __releases() and __acquires()
> (__rpm_callback() in drivers/base/power/runtime.c uses them among other things).

Ah, good to know. Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/