[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0je2QSUhU8Knk9UsboGLRpk2sNqE6U4X6eGAe+NUxZt_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:01:49 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] thermal/core: Introduce locked version of thermal_zone_device_update
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:25 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 08:15:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 3:09 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > In thermal_zone_device_set_mode(), the thermal zone mutex is released only
> > > to be reacquired in the subsequent call to thermal_zone_device_update().
> > >
> > > Introduce __thermal_zone_device_update() as locked version of
> >
> > Did you mean "unlocked"?
> >
> No, I did mean "locked", as in "must be called with thermal zone device
> mutex acquired".
>
> locked:
>
> void __thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> enum thermal_notify_event event)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> unlocked:
>
> void thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> enum thermal_notify_event event)
> {
> mutex_lock(&tz->lock);
> if (device_is_registered(&tz->device))
> __thermal_zone_device_update(tz, event);
> mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
> }
Thanks for the explanation.
> Should I phrase or explain it differently ?
I would rather say "bare" or something like that so it is all clear to
people like me, but it is your call.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists