Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 23:19:01 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        brgl@bgdev.pl, linus.walleij@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] gpiolib: cdev: reduce locking in
 gpio_desc_to_lineinfo()
Message-ID: <ZXsc5T1G5Y28lVqw@rigel>
References: <20231214095814.132400-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <20231214095814.132400-5-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <ZXsa39xneH6Rh7Gd@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZXsa39xneH6Rh7Gd@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:10:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:13PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > Reduce the time holding the gpio_lock by snapshotting the desc flags,
> > rather than testing them individually while holding the lock.
> >
> > Accept that the calculation of the used field is inherently racy, and
> > only check the availability of the line from pinctrl if other checks
> > pass, so avoiding the check for lines that are otherwise in use.
>
> ...
>
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
>
> Shouldn't this be covered by patch 1 (I mean conversion to scoped_guard()
> instead of spinlock)?
>

Read the cover letter.
Doing that made the change larger, as flags gets removed then restored.
I had also thought the flag tests would get indented then unindented, but
if we use guard() the indentation should remain unchanged.

Can do it in 1 if you are happy with the flags declaration being
removed in patch 1 and restored in 4.

Cheers,
Kent.