linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] iio: core: Introduce cleanup.h support for mode locks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DFR4DC4NN16R.2365N6R1B6A9Z@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:42:54 -0500
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@...nel.org>, "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
Cc: "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 v3 0/7] iio: core: Introduce cleanup.h support for mode
 locks

On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM -05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 03:06:55 -0500
> Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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}().
>> 
>> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
>> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
>> differences.
>> 
>> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
>> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
>> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
>> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
>> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>> 
>> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
>> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
>> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
>> it rename the whole API like this:
>> 
>> 	iio_dev_mode_lock()
>> 	iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
>> 	iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
>> 	iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>
> I'm not a huge fan of flag days though this is entirely in direct mode
> so I can just do it at the start of a cycle.
>
> Anyhow, that's a job for another day where we can bikeshed the naming
> yet again.
>
> I do like unifying the unlock though.

I can send the patch, gather some feedback and then send a rebased v2 at
the start of the next cycle (or whenever seems best).

Should be pretty trivial, after I learn a bit about semantic patches
( famous last words? :) ).

If you feel up to it, I'm up to it.

>
> Patch 5 never made the list for some reason.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260106-lock-impr-v3-0-1db909b192c0@gmail.com/#r
>
> (I thought I'd accidentally deleted it!)

Yep, it seems it never reached. I'll make sure it does this time.

>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
 ~ Kurt