Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231204180603.470421-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com> <20231204180603.470421-2-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231204180603.470421-2-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 20:11:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc=GAnzwhWQTifLzw8OA7Lb35hrJCDxK-RkgZnX8JmfOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init
To:     George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
Cc:     pavel@ucw.cz, lee@kernel.org, vadimp@nvidia.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        hdegoede@redhat.com, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, jic23@kernel.org,
        linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel@salutedevices.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:07=E2=80=AFPM George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.=
com> wrote:
>
> Using of devm API leads to certain order of releasing resources.
> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() is
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init().

...

Do you need to include mutex.h?

...

> +/**
> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
> + * @dev:       Device which lifetime work is bound to
> + * @lock:      Pointer to a mutex
> + *
> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when driver is deta=
ched.

the driver

Have you run scripts/kernel-doc -v -Wall -none ... against this file?
I'm pretty sure it will complain.

> + */


--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko