[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80881d5d-3ae9-4580-84c1-f25b421cc518@csgroup.eu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:06:15 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "lee@...nel.org" <lee@...nel.org>,
"vadimp@...dia.com" <vadimp@...dia.com>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
"hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"longman@...hat.com" <longman@...hat.com>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"nikitos.tr@...il.com" <nikitos.tr@...il.com>
CC: "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"kernel@...utedevices.com" <kernel@...utedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init
Le 13/12/2023 à 23:30, George Stark a écrit :
> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@...utedevices.com. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> Using of devm API leads to a 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 wrapper.
> 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().
So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ?
I can't see the point to spread mutex functions into devm-helpers.h
Adding a mutex_destroy macro for this purpose looks odd. And if someone
defines a new version of mutex_destroy() and forget the macro, it will
go undetected.
Usually macros of that type serve the purpose of defining a fallback
when the macro is not defined. In that case, when someone adds a new
version without defining the macro, it gets detected because if
conflicts with the fallback.
But in your case it works the other way round, so I will just go undetected.
For me the best solution remains to use mutex.h and have
devm_mutex_init() defined or declared at the same place as mutex_destroy().
>
> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
> ---
> include/linux/devm-helpers.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> index 74891802200d..4043c3481d2e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> +++ b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>
> static inline void devm_delayed_work_drop(void *res)
> @@ -76,4 +77,30 @@ static inline int devm_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
> return devm_add_action(dev, devm_work_drop, w);
> }
>
> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
> +static inline void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
> +{
> + mutex_destroy(res);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
> + * @dev: Device which lifetime mutex is bound to
> + * @lock: Pointer to a mutex
> + *
> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when the driver is detached.
> + *
> + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
> + */
> +static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + mutex_init(lock);
> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
> +#else
> + return 0;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> #endif
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists