[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd+UUY76K1Z0F4L=hqAfpAy=K8L26fqvh9-xeTHq3nf-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:33:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
Cc: pavel@....cz, lee@...nel.org, vadimp@...dia.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, marek.behun@....cz,
kabel@...nel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...utedevices.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init()
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:19 PM 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().
..
> /***
Unrelated to your patch, but there are too many asterisks :-)
> * mutex_destroy - mark a mutex unusable
> * @lock: the mutex to be destroyed
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists