[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10415b9d-5051-47b1-8dee-9decc0d1539a@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 21:23:25 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu,
miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/5] rust: core abstractions for network PHY
drivers
> Now let's look back into struct phy_device, it does have a few locks
> in it, and at least even with phydev->lock held, the content of
> phydev->lock itself can be changed (e.g tick locks), hence it breaks the
> requirement of the existence of a `&bindings::phy_device`.
tick locks appear to be a Rust thing, so are unlikely to appear in a C
structure. However, kernel C mutex does have a linked list of other
threads waiting for the mutex. So phydev->lock can change at any time,
even when held.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists