[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aD7Lhsjh6HPXedjT@cassiopeiae>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 12:16:38 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 12:09:05PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> Yes, we could solve this with a lock as well, but it would be an additional
> lock, just to maintain the current drop() semantics, which I don't see much
> value in.
If we want to keep the current drop() semantics we could use a completion
instead.
// Devres::drop()
revoke_nosync()
complete()
// devres_callback
if !try_revoke() {
// we end up here if try_revoke() indicates that the object was
// revoked already
wait_for_completion()
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists