From: "Erik Schilling" <erik.schilling@linaro.org>
To: <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "Viresh Kumar" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Subject: [libgpiod] Thread safety API contract
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:46:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CVHO091CC80Y.3KUOSLSOBVL0T@ablu-work> (raw)
Hi all!
Currently it looks like libgpiod does not document any kind of thread
safety gurantee. However, the Python bindings tests
(test_request_reconfigure_release_events) are using sequences like this:
Thread 1 creates chip + some watches
Thread 1 creates Thread 2
Thread 2 issues a request_lines on the chip
Thread 2 reconfigures the line direction
Thread 1 joins Thread 2
Thread 1 closes the chip
Implicitly this depends on a couple guarantees:
1. Calling chip-related functions does not require synchronisation
primitives (other than keeping the chip open).
-> wait_info_event, read_info_event and request_lines are called
concurrently
2. Requests may be modified by other threads
-> at least reconfiguring the direction is done
Looking at the C implementations, it indeed looks? like this is a safe
thing to do - with the current implementation.
My question is: Is this an intentional gurantee that will be guranteed
in future releases? I am trying to figure out whether the current
contract exposed by the Rust bindings is correct and/or may need to
be extended. So which guarantees are provided by the current and future
C lib?
Currently, the Rust bindings are advertising that the chip may be `Send`
to other threads. This means one thread may forget about it and another
thread receives it. In contrast, a request for a line is currently not
allowed to be transferred to other threads (it is missing the `Send`
marker).
While in C and C++ thread-safety is typically not enforced by the
compiler, Rust has mechanisms to do this. But I would like to document
the C lib's situation before inventing rules for the Rust bindings :).
Trigger of my question was that we glossed over these details in
vhost-device-gpio:
https://github.com/rust-vmm/vhost-device/pull/435#issuecomment-1717205620
- Erik
next reply other threads:[~2023-09-13 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-13 9:46 Erik Schilling [this message]
2023-09-13 12:03 ` [libgpiod] Thread safety API contract Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-09-13 13:36 ` Erik Schilling
2023-09-13 13:45 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-09-13 14:10 ` Erik Schilling
2023-09-13 15:17 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-09-13 20:10 ` Erik Schilling
2023-09-21 13:06 ` Erik Schilling
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=CVHO091CC80Y.3KUOSLSOBVL0T@ablu-work \
--to=erik.schilling@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).