[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY5fVNJBhVDrCb0cbrsWAKAZBkCACUgSjWGoHqtnaJJtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:29:45 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: take the SRCU read lock in gpiod_hog()
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:31 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> gpiod_hog() may be called without the gpio_device SRCU read lock taken
> so we need to do it here as well. It's alright if someone else is
> already holding the lock as SRCU read critical sections can be nested.
>
> Fixes: d83cee3d2bb1 ("gpio: protect the pointer to gpio_chip in gpio_device with SRCU")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202402122234.d85cca9b-lkp@intel.com
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Looking at the CLASS() stuff I see this is definitely the way to go
with the code now that we face massive scaling. Nice work.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists