[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220713170436.32330fa6@jic23-huawei>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:04:36 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"lars@...afoo.de" <lars@...afoo.de>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"noname.nuno@...il.com" <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel <kernel@...rdevices.ru>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] iio: trigger: move trig->owner init to trigger
allocate() stage
On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:59:59 +0000
Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru> wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> This patch has been on the mailing list for one month already, but no
> comments from other IIO reviewers. What do you think we should do with it?
> Is it a helpful change or not?
Given I'm way behind and timing in cycle, I'm probably going to kick this
back to start of the next cycle. Sorry for delay,
Jonathan
>
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 02:59:55PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:48:32 +0000
> > Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > To provide a new IIO trigger to the IIO core, usually driver executes the
> > > following pipeline: allocate()/register()/get(). Before, IIO core assigned
> > > trig->owner as a pointer to the module which registered this trigger at
> > > the register() stage. But actually the trigger object is owned by the
> > > module earlier, on the allocate() stage, when trigger object is
> > > successfully allocated for the driver.
> > >
> > > This patch moves trig->owner initialization from register()
> > > stage of trigger initialization pipeline to allocate() stage to
> > > eliminate all misunderstandings and time gaps between trigger object
> > > creation and owner acquiring.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru>
> >
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > I 'think' this is fine, but its in the high risk category that I'd like
> > to keep it on list for a few weeks before applying.
> >
> > Note I'm still keen that in general we keep the flow such that
> > we do allocate()/register()/get() as there is no guarantee that the get()
> > will never do anything that requires the trigger to be registered, even
> > though that is true today. Which is another way of saying I'm still
> > keen we fix up any cases that sneak in after your fix up set dealt with
> > the current ones.
> >
> > Thanks for following up on this!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists