On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 04:32:40 +0100, Vaibhav Agarwal wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:25 AM Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 11/17/21 3:02 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:56:14 +0100, > > > Alex Elder wrote: > > >> > > >> On 11/16/21 1:20 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >>> snd_ctl_remove() has to be called with card->controls_rwsem held (when > > >>> called after the card instantiation). This patch adds the missing > > >>> rwsem calls around it. > > >> > > >> I see the comment above snd_ctl_remove() that says you must hold > > >> the write lock. And given that, this seems correct to me. > > >> > > >> I understand why you want to take the lock just once, rather > > >> than each time snd_ctl_remove() is called. > > >> > > >> However I believe the acquisition and release of the lock > > >> belongs inside gbaudio_remove_controls(), not in its caller. > > >> > > >> If you disagree, can you please explain why? > > > > > > In general if the function returns an error and has a loop inside, > > > taking a lock in the caller side avoids the forgotten unlock. > > > > But taking the lock in the called function makes the > > caller not need to take the lock (which would be even > > more valuable if there were more than one caller). > > > > I prefer having the lock acquisition in the called > > function. Please send version 2, as I suggested. > > > Hi Takashi, > > Thanks for sharing this patch. In reference to the suggestion from Alex, > do you think replacing snd_ctl_find_id(), snd_ctl_remove() with > snd_ctl_remove_id() inside gbaudio_remove_controls() would be an even > better choice without worrying about locks? Yeah, that sounds like a better plan, indeed. Takashi _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|