Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <99882775-af52-49ea-b17d-f3d1f23f8bbe@salutedevices.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:48:18 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "andy.shevchenko@gmail.com" <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        "pavel@ucw.cz" <pavel@ucw.cz>, "lee@kernel.org" <lee@kernel.org>,
        "vadimp@nvidia.com" <vadimp@nvidia.com>,
        "mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@gmail.com" <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "longman@redhat.com" <longman@redhat.com>,
        "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "nikitos.tr@gmail.com" <nikitos.tr@gmail.com>
CC:     "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "kernel@salutedevices.com" <kernel@salutedevices.com>
References: <20231213223020.2713164-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
 <20231213223020.2713164-4-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
 <80881d5d-3ae9-4580-84c1-f25b421cc518@csgroup.eu>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <80881d5d-3ae9-4580-84c1-f25b421cc518@csgroup.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello Christophe

On 12/14/23 13:06, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
...
> 
> So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ?

I'm not the one who make a choice here. The patch [1] you're talking 
about was seen by everyone but it seems like no one had shown interest.
For me personally approach with #define mutex_destroy is not very usual
but if even slight mixing device with mutex.h is unacceptable what else
can we do? Avoiding the need to allocate devm slot for empty 
mutex_destroy is more important.

Should I make series #4 with the patch [1] to give it a last chance?

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/377e4437-7051-4d88-ae68-1460bcd692e1@redhat.com/T/#m3f6df30ffccaccb1df4669a327f349164f572931


> I can't see the point to spread mutex functions into devm-helpers.h
> 
> Adding a mutex_destroy macro for this purpose looks odd. And if someone
> defines a new version of mutex_destroy() and forget the macro, it will
> go undetected.
> 
> Usually macros of that type serve the purpose of defining a fallback
> when the macro is not defined. In that case, when someone adds a new
> version without defining the macro, it gets detected because if
> conflicts with the fallback.
> But in your case it works the other way round, so I will just go undetected.
> 
> For me the best solution remains to use mutex.h and have
> devm_mutex_init() defined or declared at the same place as mutex_destroy().
> 


> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
>> ---
>>    include/linux/devm-helpers.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>    1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> index 74891802200d..4043c3481d2e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>     */
>>
>>    #include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
>>    #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>
>>    static inline void devm_delayed_work_drop(void *res)
>> @@ -76,4 +77,30 @@ static inline int devm_work_autocancel(struct device *dev,
>>           return devm_add_action(dev, devm_work_drop, w);
>>    }
>>
>> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
>> +static inline void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_destroy(res);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
>> + * @dev:       Device which lifetime mutex is bound to
>> + * @lock:      Pointer to a mutex
>> + *
>> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when the driver is detached.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>> + */
>> +static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_init(lock);
>> +#ifdef mutex_destroy
>> +       return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
>> +#else
>> +       return 0;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>>    #endif
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>

-- 
Best regards
George