Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 17 May 2024 10:07:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] hwspinlock: Introduce hwspin_lock_bust() | From | Bryan O'Donoghue <> |
| |
On 17/05/2024 00:58, Chris Lew wrote: > From: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@quicinc.com> > > When a remoteproc crashes or goes down unexpectedly this can result in > a state where locks held by the remoteproc will remain locked possibly > resulting in deadlock. This new API hwspin_lock_bust() allows > hwspinlock implementers to define a bust operation for freeing previously > acquired hwspinlocks after verifying ownership of the acquired lock. > > Signed-off-by: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@quicinc.com> > Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> > --- > Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst | 11 +++++++++++ > drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
Shouldn't this be added to drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c ?
> drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h | 3 +++ > include/linux/hwspinlock.h | 6 ++++++ > 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst > index c1c2c827b575..6ee94cc6d3b7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst > +++ b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst > @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ is already free). > > Should be called from a process context (might sleep). > > +:: > + > + int hwspin_lock_bust(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, unsigned int id);
I don't think this is a geat name "bust" looks alot like "burst" and I don't think aligns well with the established namespace.
Why not simply qcom_hwspinlock_unlock_force() - which is what you are doing - forcing the hw spinlock to unlock.
--- bod
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |