[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfkTxRtMc_SpXoyoVjiWxm=c6_1VjeiRFUo4C7kH4HmUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 12:34:55 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
Cc: pavel@....cz, lee@...nel.org, vadimp@...dia.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, hdegoede@...hat.com,
mazziesaccount@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
nikitos.tr@...il.com, kabel@...nel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:40 AM George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com> wrote:
>
> 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 wrapping.
> 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() will be
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init()
>
> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you helped alot
> to make this patch happen.
You also need to figure out who should be the author of the patch and
probably add a (missing) Co-developed-by. After all you should also
follow the correct order of SoBs.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists