Re: [PATCH 1/7] hwspinlock: Introduce refcount

Chris Lew
2024-05-17T18:33:02Z

On 5/17/2024 1:58 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 00:58, Chris Lew wrote:
>> +    unsigned int refcnt;
>
> Why int and not refcount_t ?
>
> Have you an argument for or against use of one over another ?
>

I wanted to avoid the warning if you try to do a refcount_inc on 0. In
this case, 0 means the the hwlock is unused but the hwlock should
persist while waiting for another request. It seemed like refcount_t
expected the associated object to be released once the count hit 0.

Also the count here is serialized by hwspinlock_tree_lock so the need
for the atomicity provided by refcount_t was unneeded. Using unsigned
int here seemed simpler.

> ---
> bod