On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:14 AM George Stark <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Andy > > On 2/12/24 12:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:52 AM George Stark <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I haven't lose hope for the devm_mutex thing and keep pinging those guys > >> from time to time. > > > > I don't understand. According to v4 thread Christophe proposed on how > > the patch should look like. What you need is to incorporate an updated > > version into your series. Am I wrong? > > We agreed that the effective way of implementing devm_mutex_init() is in > mutex.h using forward declaration of struct device. > The only inconvenient thing is that in the mutex.h mutex_init() declared > after mutex_destroy() so we'll have to use condition #ifdef > CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES twice. Waiman Long proposed great cleanup patch [1] > that eliminates the need of doubling #ifdef. That patch was reviewed a > bit but it's still unapplied (near 2 months). I'm still trying to > contact mutex.h guys but there're no any feedback yet. So the roadmap (as I see it) is: - convince Lee to take the first patch while waiting for the others - incorporate the above mentioned patch into your series - make an ultimatum in case there is no reaction to get it applied on deadline, let's say within next cycle (if Lee is okay with a such, but this is normal practice when some maintainers are non-responsive) P.S. In case Lee doesn't want to take the first patch separately (let's say this week), send a new version with amended patches included. > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231216013656.1382213-2-longman@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m795b230d662c1debb28463ad721ddba5b384340a -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
