[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240314114025.1e27399e@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:40:25 +0100
From: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
Cc: <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, <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 v6 1/9] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:45:23 +0300
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>
> Suggested by-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Reviewed-by: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists