linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: unexport regulator

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: <20200906000717.GA3731@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
Date:   Sun, 6 Sep 2020 02:07:17 +0200
From:   Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: unexport regulator_lock/unlock()

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 06:33:30AM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> This removes regulator_lock/unlock() calls around
> regulator_notifier_call_chain() as they are redundant - drivers
> already have to guarantee regulator_dev's existence during the call.
> 
> This should make reasoing about the lock easier, as this was the only
> use outside regulator core code.
> 
> The only client that needed recursive locking from the notifier chain
> was drivers/usb/host/ohci-da8xx.c, which responds to over-current
> notification by calling regulator_disable().

I can't see the series in regulator/for-next and got no comments.
Should I resend?

As a side note: this is a step towards fixing regulator-coupling-related
locking issues.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław