Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] gpiolib: cdev: reduce locking in gpio_desc_to_lineinfo()

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:46:54PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:34:44PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:27:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:19:01PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:10:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:13PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > Reduce the time holding the gpio_lock by snapshotting the desc flags,
> > > > > > rather than testing them individually while holding the lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Accept that the calculation of the used field is inherently racy, and
> > > > > > only check the availability of the line from pinctrl if other checks
> > > > > > pass, so avoiding the check for lines that are otherwise in use.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't this be covered by patch 1 (I mean conversion to scoped_guard()
> > > > > instead of spinlock)?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read the cover letter.
> > > > Doing that made the change larger, as flags gets removed then restored.
> > > > I had also thought the flag tests would get indented then unindented, but
> > > > if we use guard() the indentation should remain unchanged.
> > >
> > > I'm fine with that as I pointed out (have you received that mail? I had
> > > problems with my mail server) the dflags is better semantically, so restoration
> > > with _different_ name is fine.
> > >
> >
> > I have noted that some of your replies have been delayed, and I can't be sure
> > of what I might not've received. I can't say I've seen one that mentions the
> > dflags name being preferable.
> >
> > I prefer the plain flags name, if there is only one flag variable in the
> > function.
> >
> > > > Can do it in 1 if you are happy with the flags declaration being
> > > > removed in patch 1 and restored in 4.
> > >
> > > Definitely.
> > >
> >
> > Ok will re-arrange in v3.
> >
>
> Hang on - patch 4 has to use a scoped_guard(), so are you ok for patch 1
> to introduce a guard(), to avoid changing the indentation, only to
> replace it with a scoped_guard(), to perform the tests after releasing
> the lock, in patch 4?
>

Alternatively, I can move patch 4 to the top of the series.

Cheers,
Kent.