Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Dec 2023 20:30:51 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v4-bis] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init | From | Waiman Long <> |
| |
On 12/15/23 10:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:23 AM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote: >> From: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com> >> >> 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. > > ... > >> } while (0) >> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT */ > ^^^ (1) > >> +struct device; >> + >> +/* >> + * devm_mutex_init() registers a function that calls mutex_destroy() >> + * when the ressource is released. >> + * >> + * When mutex_destroy() is a not, there is no need to register that >> + * function. >> + */ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES > Shouldn't this be > > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES) && !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) > > (see (1) as well)?
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT are mutually exclusive. At most one of them can be set.
Cheers, Longman
| |