Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-6949-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <ZYLczeiVDjd2cWQF@rigel> <CAMRc=MeXa5g6iQNYF4W+vGL+kgRTyVjFB-yXE_UBpuTnn2ZKng@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYLjuqxXylKPYeYP@rigel>
In-Reply-To: <ZYLjuqxXylKPYeYP@rigel>
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 14:19:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=McNMLmiUsGj8HmCqiwv-9K6EbMrmHpHMaMeFHx9BFX8gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] gpiolib: cdev: replace locking wrappers for
 gpio_device with guards
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:30:57PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:23=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I still prefer open-coded guards here for clarity. I hope that with
> > SRCU in gpiolib.c, we'll get rid of locking in cdev entirely anyway.
> >
>
> Ok, it is your object so I should use it the way you want it used.
>
> Btw, before I go pushing out a v2, do you have an answer on whether
> gpio_ioctl() requires a guard, as mentioned in the cover letter?
> Is the fact there is an active ioctl on the chardev sufficient in
> itself to keep the gpio_device alive?
>

AFAICT: no. I think it's a bug (good catch!). Can you extend your
series with a backportable bugfix that would come first?

Bartosz

> Cheers,
> Kent.