From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 092EA2F1FFC for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770118412; cv=none; b=rmQkCUCKJsMDdod2BVzzXjwfBzvU/wYt9x/TLv4tXC+GfHa4XCtp3eLjCqXJ2i7CgIm8pxDqgCoAoYaqOsa0nxnZRRBlqmoEu2hsr/tO2RVhqK27z84Iki2V9HX/GBrAIVXNWVOjCTwpfgfLAb4DRd6kEhVO5r3Yquxyz9LblcQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770118412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4WBLVKbWqynEknr1jt13Nhe7v8SGXELGO40uMwNELOE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WEXGmMzZQQwiFZ4Z81yhCtJ3zHQ4aNwSlXrrIE/sRhW2suAZXYn800Jd/Y+VU0ULczP/i+/5nay3YKJHvVmPJLaTrfqJrePXQyOx3WX3qGA6jrVNfF8nDHjnIZpPc3OFimj0fcJamlUpLQKTiCwMBrFuSOeUwL2DC8lrFakt08c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=BbHOUQPg; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=VPn5padL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="BbHOUQPg"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="VPn5padL" Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 12:33:28 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770118409; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4WBLVKbWqynEknr1jt13Nhe7v8SGXELGO40uMwNELOE=; b=BbHOUQPg2wIzVJbH26aPTf9wtM19mHhm8mrQ4WlAJX7E62TfaxDmQ1HfUlWVzEAAKXlU5y sOqOu66iMFJSrn7Si+oPulLp9vZGyb53jHGKWQ1EPBBhVxLc/DUUeWkFdLATTyV7pMaFH7 BEAS8uKq2m6oCKWBBYFBuMP9YXiGbFEMEiagVe0AoE0Z5Sh4GBdGdZL5gAcCoi6qnDWAgg mEasDpRM+gNy4PQgoX0jrrxYWHn4cek/hPYQJrq9GKZf6aJrJpi4o7gKeIr3UWQREknT7N L0RWowGyuFQcz5tfERHyQY/g4AHV37RQk/yZGHogR5NWUZ+BohSqkXvdkq1a3w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770118409; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4WBLVKbWqynEknr1jt13Nhe7v8SGXELGO40uMwNELOE=; b=VPn5padL1hp+XEtUL9CyKS61ZYjoeeFsE/Ff3G8YYapiCaypHTqCD7OCQnakdTgbxFdU40 eHQSEnbbI8xq0VBw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6hler?= Cc: Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtmutex: Introduce __cleanup() based infrastructure Message-ID: <20260203113328.REAPqQL6@linutronix.de> References: <20260202-rt_mutex-guard-v1-1-1c078dbeee57@wiredspace.de> <20260202175840.-IHSZ_Fn@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-02 19:59:43 [+0100], Thomas B=C3=B6hler wrote: > > Do you plan to have any users of this? >=20 > No. I discovered this was "missing" while developing out-of-tree. I'm > aware that an interface should have in-tree users, but I'm also a bit > confused about who is using rt_mutex in-tree in the first place as it > looks like there are only a handful of users. >=20 > I'll make sure to do more research before I might post a v2. >=20 > Please do tell me if this isn't going to be merged due to missing users, > I'll drop this then. No problem, and sorry for the noise if that's the > case. :) if you grep for rt_mutex_unlock() you should see the users. Most of it API which is unlikely to use it because not every lock has its matching unlock within the scope. The rcu user a bit "odd" so it would important to not get the compiler to optimize it away (in case it would do such a thing). The selftest is already complicated as well as the torture. Most of the i2c abstracts its away so it can't use it. This leaves us only with em28xx-i2c.c as the only possible user in-tree if I did look right. Sebastian