From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
"Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@kernel.org>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@umich.edu>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 12:08:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aD7JuyVRVr5dSqE9@cassiopeiae> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5fLggKL4jMjrJJEYV=Snqftu+oc4-sTNj9spinON5kHVP9xg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:57:22AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:43 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > I don't think that helps. If Devres::drop gets to swap is_available
> > > before the devm callback performs the swap, then the devm callback is
> > > just a no-op and the device still doesn't wait for free_irq() to
> > > finish running.
> >
> > True, this will indeed always be racy. The rule from the C API has always been
> > that devm_{remove,release}_action() must not be called if a concurrent unbind
> > can't be ruled out. Consequently, the same is true for Revocable::revoke() in
> > this case.
> >
> > I think Devres::drop() shouldn't do anything then and instead we should provide
> > Devres::release() and Devres::remove(), which require the &Device<Bound>
> > reference the Devres object was created with, in order to prove that there
> > can't be a concurrent unbind, just like Devres::access().
>
> What I suggested with the mutex would work if you remove the devm
> callback *after* calling free_irq.
>
> // drop Registration
> mutex_lock();
> free_irq();
> mutex_unlock();
> devm_remove_callback();
I think it would need to be
if (!devm_remove_callback()) {
mutex_lock();
free_irq();
mutex_unlock();
}
> // devm callback
> mutex_lock();
> free_irq();
> mutex_unlock();
Yes, we could solve this with a lock as well, but it would be an additional
lock, just to maintain the current drop() semantics, which I don't see much
value in.
The common case is that the object wrapped in a Devres is meant to live for the
entire duration the device is bound to the driver.
> Another simpler option is to just not support unregistering the irq
> callback except through devm. Then you don't have a registration at
> all. Creating the callback can take an irq number and a ForeignOwnable
> to put in the void pointer. The devm callback calls free_irq and drops
> the ForeignOwnable.
That's basically what Devres::new_foreign_owned() already does.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-14 19:20 [PATCH v3 0/2] rust: add support for request_irq Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq() Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 20:04 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 20:58 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 21:03 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 8:46 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-15 12:06 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:44 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-02 15:20 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-04 7:36 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-04 7:48 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-04 9:43 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 21:53 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 11:54 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:04 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 12:27 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 13:16 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 13:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 13:52 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 14:40 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-02 17:35 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 16:02 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-05-15 13:28 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-02 16:19 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-02 17:31 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 8:28 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 8:46 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 8:54 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 9:10 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 9:18 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 9:43 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 9:57 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 10:08 ` Danilo Krummrich [this message]
2025-06-03 10:16 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-04 18:32 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-04 18:57 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-18 13:24 ` Alexandre Courbot
2025-05-18 14:07 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] rust: platform: add irq accessors Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 20:06 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-19 10:41 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 14:56 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-02 17:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aD7JuyVRVr5dSqE9@cassiopeiae \
--to=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=a.hindborg@kernel.org \
--cc=alex.gaynor@gmail.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=benno.lossin@proton.me \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.almeida@collabora.com \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tmgross@umich.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.