From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev,
driver-core@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] platform/chrome: Protect cros_ec_device lifecycle with revocable
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 13:00:43 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260514160043.GG787748@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agVCtBbqT6aZL0mx@google.com>
On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 03:34:12AM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> To help me understand, could you elaborate on why the revocable mechanism
> isn't suitable here?
Stay within one driver. Create the revokable is probe, consume it
within that drivers fops/etc, destroy it on remove. Do not randomly
pass it to other drivers.
> I'm wondering because if this piece of code were to transition to
> Rust in the future, would the concerns you have also apply to using
> Revocable[1] in the Rust context for this driver?
Yes, even in rust driver local revocable objects should not be
spaghetti coded through different layers.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-14 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 9:10 [PATCH v11 0/5] drivers/base: Introduce revocable Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-13 9:10 ` [PATCH v11 1/5] revocable: Revocable resource management Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-13 9:10 ` [PATCH v11 2/5] revocable: Add KUnit test cases Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-13 9:10 ` [PATCH v11 3/5] gpio: Leverage revocable for accessing struct gpio_chip Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-13 9:10 ` [PATCH v11 4/5] platform/chrome: Protect cros_ec_device lifecycle with revocable Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-13 11:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-05-14 3:34 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2026-05-14 16:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2026-05-13 9:10 ` [PATCH v11 5/5] platform/chrome: cros_ec_chardev: Consume cros_ec_device via revocable Tzung-Bi Shih
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=20260514160043.GG787748@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bleung@chromium.org \
--cc=brgl@kernel.org \
--cc=chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=driver-core@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tzungbi@kernel.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox