On 25/04/24 18:22, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:20:32AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:49:16PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 01:42:22PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:25:06PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote: >>>>> On 23/04/24 02:24, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:27:53PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote: >>>>>>> In scenarios where drm_dev_put is directly called by driver we want to >>>>>>> release devm_drm_dev_init_release action associated with struct >>>>>>> drm_device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v2: Directly expose the original function, instead of introducing a >>>>>>> helper (Rodrigo) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v3: add kernel-doc (Maxime Ripard) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Cc: Thomas Hellstr_m <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>> please avoid these empty lines here.... cc, rv-b, sign-offs, links, >>>>>> etc are all in the same block. >>>>> ok. >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>>>>> include/drm/drm_drv.h | 2 ++ >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c >>>>>>> index 243cacb3575c..9d0409165f1e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c >>>>>>> @@ -714,6 +714,19 @@ static int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent, >>>>>>> devm_drm_dev_init_release, dev); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>> + * devm_drm_dev_release_action - Call the final release action of the device >>>>>> Seeing the doc here gave me a second thought.... >>>>>> >>>>>> the original release should be renamed to _devm_drm_dev_release >>>>>> and this should be called devm_drm_dev_release without the 'action' word. >>>>> i believe, was suggested earlier to directly expose the main function, is >>>>> there any reason to have a __ version ? >>>> No no, just ignore me. Just remove the '_action' and don't change the other. >>>> >>>> I don't like exposing the a function with '__'. what would '__' that mean? >>>> This is what I meant on the first comment. >>>> >>>> Now, I believe that we don't need the '_action'. What does the 'action' mean? >>>> >>>> the devm_drm_dev_release should be enough. But then I got confused and >>>> I thought it would conflict with the original released function name. >>>> But I misread it. >>> I don't think devm_drm_dev_release is a good name either. Just like any >>> other devm_* function that cancels what a previous one has been doing >>> (devm_kfree, devm_backlight_device_unregister, devm_nvmem_device_put, >>> etc.) it should be called devm_drm_dev_put or something similar. >> I see what you mean, but I don't believe the 'put' is the best option, >> for 2 reasons: >> - in general, we have put paired with gets and this has not get equivalent > Yeah, that's true. _release is fine then I guess. > >> - this bypass the regular get/put mechanism and forces the releases that >> would be done only after all drm_dev_put() taking ref to zero. > I don't think it does? devm_release_action will only remove the devm > action and execute it directly, but this action here is a call to > drm_dev_put, so we might still have other references taken that would > defer the device being freed. yes i.e right, i assumed drm_dev_unplug would close all client handles but no. So i was thinking if it is ok to iterate over no of clients and call drm_dev_put in either drm_dev_unplug or as part of this devm_release. Thanks, Aravind. > > Maxime
