On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:07:12 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:33:26AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > We may optimize out the whole locking conditionally for the > > known-good drivers, > > > well, that would work, though obviously someone would still have to > check the drivers and set the flag. also, this kind of technically > unnecessary fragmentation doesn't really help. > > > instead of relying on a (hackish) big iron lock that wasn't > > considered to be used originally at all. > > > i think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. > the fact that the lock was originally meant to do something else is > meaningless. you could just as well create a dedicated lock > specifically for that task - the important thing is that the core > would provide a guarantee to the drivers that mixer callbacks are > locked, just like it does for some pcm callbacks unless the driver > opts out. given that mixer operations are rare in the big picture, > fine-grained locking in the drivers is unnecessary (except where not > mixer-only data is accessed). given the amount of code this saves, > this seems like a rather worthwhile trade-off with the formal > cleanness of drivers having self-contained locking. My whole point is that no driver should touch card->controls_rwsem from outside (unless the driver needs to traverse the card's linked list by some special reasons). It's not for protecting the driver's own content. It's used casually now for get/put, but it should be seen only for protecting the list. Unlike PCM, the control get/put has never been considered to be fully protected, and it was always driver's responsibility. Takashi
