From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/13] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 19:31:21 +0900 Message-ID: <20170603103121.GA9599@kroah.com> References: <1494791476-14599-1-git-send-email-peda@lysator.liu.se> <20170603102627.GA24274@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170603102627.GA24274@kroah.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Rosin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Rosin , Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , Jonathan Corbet , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Colin Ian King , Paul Gortmaker , Philipp Zabel , kernel@pengutronix.de List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:26:27PM +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > > From: Peter Rosin > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > Philipp found problems in v14 with using a mutex for locking that was > > the outcome of the review for v13, so I'm now using a semaphore instead > > of the rwsem that was in v13. That at least got rid of the scary call > > to downgrade_write. However, I'm still unsure about what you actually > > meant with your comment about lack of sparse markings [1]. I did add > > __must_check to the funcs that selects the mux, but I've got this > > feeling that this is not what you meant? > > I thought there was a way to mark a function as requiring a lock be held > when it is being called. Does sparse not support that anymore? Anyway, not a big deal. I still worry about the calls blocking when people are not expecting them to, but it is just the nature of th api I guess. All now queued up, nice work, thanks for sticking with this. greg k-h