Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init

[George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>]

Hello Christophe

On 3/7/24 16:50, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 07/03/2024 à 03:40, George Stark a écrit :
>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@salutedevices.com. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> 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()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
>> ---
>>    Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you helped alot
>>    to make this patch happen.
> 
> Up to you, I sent a RFC patch based on yours with my ideas included
> because an exemple is easier than a lot of words for understanding, and
> my scripts automatically sets the Signed-off-by: but feel free to change
> it to Suggested-by:

Although we had close ideas for the final patch in v4
you encouraged me to do it in the right (=effective) way and go back
from devm-helpers.h to mutex.h in the first place, reinforced the 
concept with appropriate examples from existing code, reviewed a lot. 
Thanks. Probably Suggested-by: is more suited here

-- 
Best regards
George