[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n53a75cgRNJOdn1=19OG_yJt9DDXHZ4quhZwCtZiQ1RUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:36:38 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] regulator/core: regulator_lock_nested: simplify
nested locking
Quoting Michał Mirosław (2023-08-30 10:35:31)
> Simplify regulator locking by removing locking around locking.
Maybe this should say "Simplify regulator_lock_nested() by removing the
`regulator_nesting_mutex` now that rdev is locked whenever rdev->ref_cnt or
rdev->owner are modified"?
> rdev->ref check when unlocking is moved inside the critical section.
rdev->ref_cnt?
>
> This patch depends on commit 12235da8c80a ("kernel/locking: Add context
> to ww_mutex_trylock()").
>
> Note: return -EALREADY is removed as no caller depends on it and in that
> case the lock count is incremented anyway.
Where is -EALREADY removed in this patch? Perhaps "removed" should be
"ignored"?
Note: A return value of -EALREADY from ww_mutex_lock() in
regulator_lock_nested() is ignored as no caller depends on it.
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists