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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdLT9cOuKn-d14Dp5Ve2NBXAdHQZWeXTLLjYxCQZZQtEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:42:22 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.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>,
        "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

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:00 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> 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 ]
> > 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

I believe the main misunderstanding here is where to put the
implementation. AFAIU Christophe wants the implementation to be in the
very same _C_-file where mutex_destroy() is defined. mutex.h in this
case indeed requires the only forward declaration and hence doesn't
need to include device.h.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko