On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:53 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:30:57PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:23 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be read and write guards for the gpio_device. > > > cdev would only be using the read flavour. > > > And possibly named something other than read/write as the purpose is to > > > prevent (read) or allow (write) object removal. > > > > > > I though that would be clearer than having to reference gpiolib.h to see > > > what gdev->sem covers, and allow you to change the locking > > > mechanism later and not have to update cdev. > > > > > > > I still prefer open-coded guards here for clarity. I hope that with > > SRCU in gpiolib.c, we'll get rid of locking in cdev entirely anyway. > > > > Ok, it is your object so I should use it the way you want it used. > > Btw, before I go pushing out a v2, do you have an answer on whether > gpio_ioctl() requires a guard, as mentioned in the cover letter? > Is the fact there is an active ioctl on the chardev sufficient in > itself to keep the gpio_device alive? > AFAICT: no. I think it's a bug (good catch!). Can you extend your series with a backportable bugfix that would come first? Bartosz > Cheers, > Kent.