Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230920085639.152441-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <CACRpkdYtbGqmMqN7FNhjYJGG+e0jWQmozf9kpNHiUBJvd2c=7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=McrXEQbwcsK3yrfROujezjMd1L4EcJj7GNTCE5L6zD1gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=McrXEQbwcsK3yrfROujezjMd1L4EcJj7GNTCE5L6zD1gw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:58:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYNA1rkG5wJ0+rAT9g4EyzfbN5VP2a9vuMMk_RD6bMLFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: extend the critical sections of lookup tables
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:33=E2=80=AFAM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl=
> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 11:12:58 +0200, Linus Walleij
> <linus.walleij@linaro.org> said:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:56=E2=80=AFAM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgde=
v.pl> wrote:

> > Can we rename this function gpiod_find_lookup_table_locked()
> > as per precedents in the kernel, to indicate that it needs to be
> > called with a lock held?
> >
>
> I think you mean gpiod_find_lookup_table_unlocked() as with this change i=
t
> will no longer take the lock?

I think the pattern is the one I indicated: *_locked() means the function
is to be called with the appropriate lock held, cf
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mm.c

pkvm_create_mappings() takes a lock and then calls
pkvm_create_mappings_locked() which even asserts that
the lock is held.

Yours,
Linus Walleij