Le 06/12/2023 à 23:14, Christophe Leroy a écrit :

Le 06/12/2023 à 19:58, George Stark a écrit :

quoted

[Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de 
gnstark@salutedevices.com. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à 
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Hello Hans

Thanks for the review.

On 12/6/23 18:01, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

Hi George,

On 12/4/23 19:05, George Stark wrote:

quoted

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() is
extended so introduce devm_mutex_init().

Signed-off-by: George Stark <redacted>
---
  include/linux/devm-helpers.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h 

b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
index 74891802200d..2f56e476776f 100644

--- a/include/linux/devm-helpers.h
+++ b/include/linux/devm-helpers.h

@@ -76,4 +76,22 @@ static inline int devm_work_autocancel(struct 

device *dev,
     return devm_add_action(dev, devm_work_drop, w);
  }

+static inline void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
+{
+    mutex_destroy(res);
+}
+
+/**
+ * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
+ * @dev:    Device which lifetime work is bound to
+ * @lock:   Pointer to a mutex
+ *
+ * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when driver is 
detached.
+ */
+static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex 
*lock)
+{
+    mutex_init(lock);
+    return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
+}
+
  #endif

mutex_destroy() only actually does anything if CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
is set, otherwise it is an empty inline-stub.

Adding a devres resource to the device just to call an empty inline
stub which is a no-op seems like a waste of resources. IMHO it
would be better to change this to:

static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex 
*lock)
{
      mutex_init(lock);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
      return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
#else
      return 0;
#endif
}

To avoid the unnecessary devres allocation when
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is not set.

Honestly saying I don't like unnecessary devres allocation either but
the proposed approach has its own price:

1) we'll have more than one place with branching if mutex_destroy is
empty or not using  indirect condition. If suddenly mutex_destroy is
extended for non-debug code (in upstream branch or e.g. by someone for
local debug) than there'll be a problem.

2) If mutex_destroy is empty or not depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT option
too. When CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is on mutex_destroy is always empty.

As I see it only the mutex interface (mutex.h) has to say definitely if
mutex_destroy must be called. Probably we could add some define to
include/linux/mutex.h,like IS_MUTEX_DESTROY_REQUIRED and declare it near
mutex_destroy definition itself.

I tried to put devm_mutex_init itself in mutex.h and it could've helped
too but it's not the place for devm API.

What do you mean by "it's not the place for devm API" ?

If you do a 'grep devm_ include/linux/' you'll find devm_ functions in 
almost 100 .h files. Why wouldn't mutex.h be the place for 
devm_mutex_init() ?

Looking at it closer, I have the feeling that you want to do similar to 
devm_gpio_request() in linux/gpio.h :

In linux/mutex.h, add a prototype for devm_mutex_init() when 
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is defined and an empty static inline otherwise.
Then define devm_mutex_init() in kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c

Wouldn't that work ?

Christophe