Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103125-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240314084531.1935545-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com> <20240314084531.1935545-2-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240314084531.1935545-2-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:33:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeHsSvs5eUC2eUTCLJLKNcoPShXoH3fmA0J4GUQTMV1LA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] locking/mutex: 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, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, 
	will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, 
	nikitos.tr@gmail.com, marek.behun@nic.cz, kabel@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

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:46=E2=80=AFAM George Stark <gnstark@salutedevice=
s.com> wrote:
>
> Using of devm API leads to a 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() will be
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init()

Missing period at the end.

...

> Suggested by-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

Needs properly spelled tag.

..

> +static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lo=
ck)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * When CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is off mutex_destroy is just a nop s=
o

mutex_destroy()

> +        * no really need to register it in devm subsystem.

in the devm

> +        */
> +       return 0;
> +}

..

> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>

Without seeing much context can't say if there is a better (more
ordered) place to squeeze a new header to. Please, check.

..

After addressing the above comments
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko