linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:00:12 +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 14/12/2023 à 13:48, 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 ]
> 
> Hello Christophe
> 
> On 12/14/23 13:06, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
> ...
>>
>> So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ?
> 
> I'm not the one who make a choice here. The patch [1] you're talking
> about was seen by everyone but it seems like no one had shown interest.
> For me personally approach with #define mutex_destroy is not very usual
> but if even slight mixing device with mutex.h is unacceptable what else
> can we do? Avoiding the need to allocate devm slot for empty
> mutex_destroy is more important.
> 

Why would a forward declaration of struct device in mutex.h be 
unacceptable when it is done in so many headers ?

$ git grep "struct device;" include/ | wc -l
164



> Should I make series #4 with the patch [1] to give it a last chance?

Yes, lets give it a try

> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/377e4437-7051-4d88-ae68-1460bcd692e1@redhat.com/T/#m3f6df30ffccaccb1df4669a327f349164f572931
> 

Christophe