From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
boqun.feng@gmail.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
jic23@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@salutedevices.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init and devm_mutex_destroy
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:55:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbd2705d-9d43-4822-9b5c-ea437a2ccca7@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231128000910.73784-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
On 11/27/23 19:09, George Stark wrote:
> Using of devm API leads to certain order of releasing resources.
> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() will be
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init() and devm_mutex_destroy().
>
> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
> ---
> include/linux/mutex.h | 3 +++
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
> index a33aa9eb9fc3..7f60cd842322 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
> @@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ do { \
> extern void __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name,
> struct lock_class_key *key);
>
> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
> +void devm_mutex_destroy(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
> +
> /**
> * mutex_is_locked - is the mutex locked
> * @lock: the mutex to be queried
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index d973fe6041bf..a73124719dcb 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,43 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
>
> +static void devm_mutex_release(struct device *dev, void *res)
> +{
> + mutex_destroy(*(struct mutex **)res);
> +}
> +
> +static int devm_mutex_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *data)
> +{
> + struct mutex **r = res;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!r || !*r))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return *r == data;
> +}
> +
> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + struct mutex **ptr;
> +
> + ptr = devres_alloc(devm_mutex_release, sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ptr)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + mutex_init(lock);
> +
> + *ptr = lock;
> + devres_add(dev, ptr);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_mutex_init);
> +
> +void devm_mutex_destroy(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + devres_release(dev, devm_mutex_release, devm_mutex_match, lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_mutex_destroy);
> +
> /*
> * @owner: contains: 'struct task_struct *' to the current lock owner,
> * NULL means not owned. Since task_struct pointers are aligned at
These APIs are specific to devres. I don't believe it is suitable to put
them into the generic mutex.h header file. All devres_* functions are
defined in include/linux/device.h which is probabably not included in
mutex.h. You may consider putting these APIs into device.h instead.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-28 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-28 0:09 [RFC PATCH 1/1] locking: introduce devm_mutex_init and devm_mutex_destroy George Stark
2023-11-28 1:55 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2023-11-28 16:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-01 13:43 ` George Stark
2023-11-28 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=cbd2705d-9d43-4822-9b5c-ea437a2ccca7@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=gnstark@salutedevices.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@salutedevices.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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