Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230920085639.152441-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <CACRpkdYtbGqmMqN7FNhjYJGG+e0jWQmozf9kpNHiUBJvd2c=7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=McrXEQbwcsK3yrfROujezjMd1L4EcJj7GNTCE5L6zD1gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdYNA1rkG5wJ0+rAT9g4EyzfbN5VP2a9vuMMk_RD6bMLFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MeaAG5w_JzgSNs-EC5HY=2izC4W1FHZ54trEW_PvA8Yfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRc=McuKNg5r7m6OPtwYc3er7i6JB2JN=H6QVJU_G9BVtnuAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=McuKNg5r7m6OPtwYc3er7i6JB2JN=H6QVJU_G9BVtnuAA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:01:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Md6=UNVt-HygYoaqwXXDdjrqsPvbyOrQcThjHOWAzLQ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: extend the critical sections of lookup tables
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
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 Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 4:24=E2=80=AFPM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>=
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 2:51=E2=80=AFPM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.p=
l> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:58:58 +0200, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro=
.org> said:
> > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:33=E2=80=AFAM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bg=
dev.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=
@bgdev.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 cha=
nge it
> > >> will no longer take the lock?
> > >
> > > I think the pattern is the one I indicated: *_locked() means the func=
tion
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Ha! I always though the pattern is to call the functions that *DON'T* t=
ake
> > the lock _unlocked(). This is what I used in gpiolib-cdev.c or gpio-sim=
.c.
> >
> > I guess both conventions make sense in some way.
> >
> > Bart
>
> I don't think I will be doing it just now. We don't use this
> convention elsewhere in drivers/gpio/ and we'll have a lot of locking
> reworked soon anyway. We may get to it when that is done.
>
> Bart

If there are no objections, I'd like to queue it this week.

Bart