[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68533caa-d98f-4824-a761-82a09f419f41@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:20:56 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>, pavel@....cz,
lee@...nel.org, vadimp@...dia.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
hdegoede@...hat.com, andy.shevchenko@...il.com, jic23@...nel.org
Cc: linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init
On 12/4/23 20:05, George Stark wrote:
> Using of devm API leads to certain order of releasing resources.
> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() is
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init().
>
> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
> ---
> include/linux/devm-helpers.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> index 74891802200d..2f56e476776f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> +++ b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> @@ -76,4 +76,22 @@ static inline int devm_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
> return devm_add_action(dev, devm_work_drop, w);
> }
>
> +static inline void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
> +{
> + mutex_destroy(res);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
> + * @dev: Device which lifetime work is bound to
Work? Copy-paste error?
> + * @lock: Pointer to a mutex
> + *
> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when driver is detached.
> + */
> +static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + mutex_init(lock);
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
> +}
> +
> #endif
Doesn't the mutex stuff need a header inclusion?
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists