Message-ID: <54483083c42cf7500239ebb7c0d32d25f11bb02f.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 10:34:13 +0000
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko
	 <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>, Andy Shevchenko
 <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,  Lars-Peter Clausen	 <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Benson Leung
 <bleung@...omium.org>, Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
 Gwendal Grignou	 <gwendal@...omium.org>, Shrikant Raskar
 <raskar.shree97@...il.com>,  Per-Daniel Olsson <perdaniel.olsson@...s.com>,
 David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá	
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck	
 <groeck@...omium.org>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, 
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] iio: core: Introduce cleanup.h support for mode
 locks

On Sat, 2025-12-06 at 18:46 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:07:28 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 4:35 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:  
> > > > 
> > > > In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
> > > > add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
> > > > 
> > > >       iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().  
> > > 
> > > We already went this patch and then reverted it. I guess before we did not had
> > > ACQUIRE() and ACQUIRE_ERR() but I'm not sure that makes it much better. Looking at the
> > > last two patches on how we are handling the buffer mode stuff, I'm really not convinced...
> > > 
> > > Also, I have doubts sparse can keep up with the __cleanup stuff so I'm not sure the
> > > annotations much make sense if we go down this path. Unless we want to use both
> > > approaches which is also questionable.  
> > 
> > This, indeed, needs a (broader) discussion and I appreciate that Kurt
> > sent this RFC. Jonathan, what's your thoughts?
> 
> I was pretty heavily involved in discussions around ACQUIRE() and it's use
> in CXL and runtime PM (though that's still evolving with Rafael trying
> to improve the syntax a little).  As you might guess I did have this use
> in mind during those discussions.
> 
> As far as I know by avoiding the for loop complexity of the previous
> try we made and looking (under the hood) like guard() it should be much
> easier and safer to use.  Looking at this was on my list, so I'm very happy
> to see this series from Kurt exploring how it would be done.
> 
> Sparse wise there is no support for now for any of the cleanup.h magic
> other than ignoring it.  That doesn't bother me that much though as these
> macros create more or less hidden local variables that are hard to mess
> with in incorrect ways.
> 
> So in general I'm very much in favour of this for same reasons I jumped
> in last time (which turned out to be premature!)
> 
> This will be particularly useful in avoiding the need for helper functions
> in otherwise simple code flows.
> 

Ok, it seems we are going down the path to introduce this again. I do agree the new ACQUIRE()
macros make things better (btw, I would be in favor of something similar to pm runtime). Though
I'm still a bit worried about the device lock helper (the iio_device_claim one). We went through
some significant work in order to make mlock private (given historical abuse of it) and this
is basically making it public again. So I would like to either think a bit harder to see if we
can avoid it or just keep the code in patches 5 and 6 as is (even though the dance in there is
really not pretty).

At the very least I would like to see a big, fat comment stating that lock is not to be randomly
used by drivers to protect their own internal data structures and state.

- Nuno Sá

Powered by blists - more mailing lists