Re: [PATCH 3/7] hwspinlock: Introduce hwspin_lock_bust()

[Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>]

On 17/05/2024 10:07, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 00:58, Chris Lew wrote:
>> From: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@quicinc.com>
>>
>> When a remoteproc crashes or goes down unexpectedly this can result in
>> a state where locks held by the remoteproc will remain locked possibly
>> resulting in deadlock. This new API hwspin_lock_bust() allows
>> hwspinlock implementers to define a bust operation for freeing previously
>> acquired hwspinlocks after verifying ownership of the acquired lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@quicinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst     | 11 +++++++++++
>>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c     | 30 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 
> Shouldn't this be added to drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c ?
> 
>>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h |  3 +++
>>   include/linux/hwspinlock.h               |  6 ++++++
>>   4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst 
>> b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
>> index c1c2c827b575..6ee94cc6d3b7 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
>> @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ is already free).
>>   Should be called from a process context (might sleep).
>> +::
>> +
>> +  int hwspin_lock_bust(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, unsigned int id);
> 
> I don't think this is a geat name "bust" looks alot like "burst" and I 
> don't think aligns well with the established namespace.
> 
> Why not simply qcom_hwspinlock_unlock_force() - which is what you are 
> doing - forcing the hw spinlock to unlock.

hmm looking again, I think _core is the right place and bust() is 
consistent with bust_spinlocks();

meh

---
bod