From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
"Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@kernel.org>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@umich.edu>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 12:08:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aD7JuyVRVr5dSqE9@cassiopeiae> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5fLggKL4jMjrJJEYV=Snqftu+oc4-sTNj9spinON5kHVP9xg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:57:22AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:43 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > I don't think that helps. If Devres::drop gets to swap is_available
> > > before the devm callback performs the swap, then the devm callback is
> > > just a no-op and the device still doesn't wait for free_irq() to
> > > finish running.
> >
> > True, this will indeed always be racy. The rule from the C API has always been
> > that devm_{remove,release}_action() must not be called if a concurrent unbind
> > can't be ruled out. Consequently, the same is true for Revocable::revoke() in
> > this case.
> >
> > I think Devres::drop() shouldn't do anything then and instead we should provide
> > Devres::release() and Devres::remove(), which require the &Device<Bound>
> > reference the Devres object was created with, in order to prove that there
> > can't be a concurrent unbind, just like Devres::access().
>
> What I suggested with the mutex would work if you remove the devm
> callback *after* calling free_irq.
>
> // drop Registration
> mutex_lock();
> free_irq();
> mutex_unlock();
> devm_remove_callback();
I think it would need to be
if (!devm_remove_callback()) {
mutex_lock();
free_irq();
mutex_unlock();
}
> // devm callback
> mutex_lock();
> free_irq();
> mutex_unlock();
Yes, we could solve this with a lock as well, but it would be an additional
lock, just to maintain the current drop() semantics, which I don't see much
value in.
The common case is that the object wrapped in a Devres is meant to live for the
entire duration the device is bound to the driver.
> Another simpler option is to just not support unregistering the irq
> callback except through devm. Then you don't have a registration at
> all. Creating the callback can take an irq number and a ForeignOwnable
> to put in the void pointer. The devm callback calls free_irq and drops
> the ForeignOwnable.
That's basically what Devres::new_foreign_owned() already does.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-03 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-14 19:20 [PATCH v3 0/2] rust: add support for request_irq Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq() Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 20:04 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 20:58 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 21:03 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 8:46 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-15 12:06 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:44 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-02 15:20 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-04 7:36 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-04 7:48 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-04 9:43 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 21:53 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 11:54 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:04 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 12:27 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 12:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 13:16 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-05-15 13:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-15 13:52 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 14:40 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-02 17:35 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 16:02 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-05-15 13:28 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-02 16:19 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-02 17:31 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 8:28 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 8:46 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 8:54 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 9:10 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 9:18 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 9:43 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-03 9:57 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-06-03 10:08 ` Danilo Krummrich [this message]
2025-06-03 10:16 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-04 18:32 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-04 18:57 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-05-18 13:24 ` Alexandre Courbot
2025-05-18 14:07 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] rust: platform: add irq accessors Daniel Almeida
2025-05-14 20:06 ` Benno Lossin
2025-05-19 10:41 ` Danilo Krummrich
2025-06-02 14:56 ` Daniel Almeida
2025-06-02 17:45 ` Danilo Krummrich
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=aD7JuyVRVr5dSqE9@cassiopeiae \
--to=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=a.hindborg@kernel.org \
--cc=alex.gaynor@gmail.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=benno.lossin@proton.me \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.almeida@collabora.com \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tmgross@umich.edu \
/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