[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DFQ5W41X6Z7S.3V6FRPXYMDJ1F@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:41:47 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Laurent Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...nel.org>, "Tzung-Bi Shih"
<tzungbi@...nel.org>, "Benson Leung" <bleung@...omium.org>, "Greg
Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, "Linus Walleij" <linusw@...nel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet"
<corbet@....net>, "Shuah Khan" <shuah@...nel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, "Simona Vetter"
<simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "Jason
Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] revocable: Revocable resource management
On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 5:04 PM CET, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Based on the discussions we had at LPC, the revocable resource management API
> is not the right solution to handle races between device removal and userspace
> access.
Please see: https://lore.kernel.org/all/DFQ5D44A0348.PZJIGPL972N@kernel.org/
> It is however a possibly useful tool for races between producers and consumers
> *inside the kernel*.
Do you have an example for such a case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists