On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:21:38AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
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:
> 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).
nothing in what i wrote even suggests that it _should_. how a driver
would explicitly interact with _a_ mixer callback lock is entirely open
so far.
Unlike PCM, the control get/put has never been considered to be fully
protected,
the whole argument is that it _should_.
and it was always driver's responsibility.
clearly a responsibility that has been widely shirked, even before it
was actually safe to do so. the pragmatic thing to do would be accepting
this reality and ensuring locking by the core, in whichever way.
regards
