[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYLjuqxXylKPYeYP@rigel>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:53:14 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, andy@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] gpiolib: cdev: replace locking wrappers for
gpio_device with guards
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:30:57PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:23 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > It would be read and write guards for the gpio_device.
> > cdev would only be using the read flavour.
> > And possibly named something other than read/write as the purpose is to
> > prevent (read) or allow (write) object removal.
> >
> > I though that would be clearer than having to reference gpiolib.h to see
> > what gdev->sem covers, and allow you to change the locking
> > mechanism later and not have to update cdev.
> >
>
> I still prefer open-coded guards here for clarity. I hope that with
> SRCU in gpiolib.c, we'll get rid of locking in cdev entirely anyway.
>
Ok, it is your object so I should use it the way you want it used.
Btw, before I go pushing out a v2, do you have an answer on whether
gpio_ioctl() requires a guard, as mentioned in the cover letter?
Is the fact there is an active ioctl on the chardev sufficient in
itself to keep the gpio_device alive?
Cheers,
Kent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists