Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-6888-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:23:41 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, andy@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] gpiolib: cdev: replace locking wrappers for
 gpio_device with guards
Message-ID: <ZYLczeiVDjd2cWQF@rigel>
References: <20231220015106.16732-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <20231220015106.16732-5-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CACRpkdZ5HzOxtbexQNE-A-bKhiUW1nHjvJQA_CCnmVXf+R6dbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MfvKzOxPrmz1wmgWMwYUbNhWAjqoKOmcaggQntcDprLmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYLaayENrvL1Nh6H@rigel>
 <CAMRc=MfyCBpZ07SYfxMtug6FVYiKA0MRgvjMTOAzKiVLGdPM+w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MfyCBpZ07SYfxMtug6FVYiKA0MRgvjMTOAzKiVLGdPM+w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:16:00PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:13 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:05:35PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:56 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (+PeterZ)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 2:52 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Replace the wrapping functions that inhibit removal of the gpio_device
> > > > > with equivalent guard macros.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
> > > > (...)
> > > > > +DEFINE_CLASS(_read_sem_guard,
> > > > > +            struct rw_semaphore *,
> > > > > +            up_read(_T),
> > > > > +            ({
> > > > > +               down_read(sem);
> > > > > +               sem;
> > > > > +            }),
> > > > > +            struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this so generic that it should be in <linux/cleanup.h>?
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise all the patches look good to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We already have this:
> > >
> > > DEFINE_GUARD(rwsem_read, struct rw_semaphore *, down_read(_T), up_read(_T))
> > > DEFINE_GUARD(rwsem_write, struct rw_semaphore *, down_write(_T), up_write(_T))
> > >
> > > DEFINE_FREE(up_read, struct rw_semaphore *, if (_T) up_read(_T))
> > > DEFINE_FREE(up_write, struct rw_semaphore *, if (_T) up_write(_T))
> > >
> >
> > Ah - in rwsem.h - I missed that.
> >
> > > This can surely be used here, right?
> > >
> >
> > Don't see why not.
> >
> > I would still like to move the gpio_device specific macros to gpiolib.h,
> > as they apply to the struct gpio_device defined there.
>
> Which ones? Because I'd rather use guard(rwsem_read)(&gdev->sem); than
> some custom wrapper as this one's purpose is clearer.
>

It would be read and write guards for the gpio_device.
cdev would only be using the read flavour.
And possibly named something other than read/write as the purpose is to
prevent (read) or allow (write) object removal.

I though that would be clearer than having to reference gpiolib.h to see
what gdev->sem covers, and allow you to change the locking
mechanism later and not have to update cdev.

Cheers,
Kent.