On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 11:30 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 11:24 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:48:16AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 4:11 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * This is called from atomic context (with a spinlock taken by the > > > > > > + * atomic notifier chain). Any sleeping calls must be done outside of > > > > > > + * this function in process context of the dedicated workqueue. > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Let's gather as much info as possible from the descriptor and > > > > > > + * postpone just the call to pinctrl_gpio_can_use_line() until the work > > > > > > + * is executed. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > Should be in patch 4? You aren't otherwise changing that function here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Until this patch, the comment isn't really true, so I figured it makes > > > > more sense here. > > > > > > > > > > So the validity of the comment depends on how the function is being called? > > > Then perhaps you should reword it as well. > > > > > > > The validity of the comment depends on the type of the notifier used. > > As long as it's a blocking notifier, it's called with a mutex taken - > > it's process context. When we switch to the atomic notifier, this > > function is now called with a spinlock taken, so it's considered > > atomic. > > > > Indeed - so the comment is brittle. > I'm not sure what you're saying. We know it's an atomic notifier, we assign this callback to the block and register by calling atomic_notifier_chain_register(). I fail to see why you consider it "brittle". Bart