Hello Andy
On 2/13/24 13:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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)
Well, it was interesting to know that there is such a practice.
Waiman Long has just updated his patches with mutex.h cleanup [1] so I
think we can wait for that series to be merged than I'll prepare may
patchseries with or w\o the first patch.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213031656.1375951-4-longman@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
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.
Ok
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231216013656.1382213-2-longman@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m795b230d662c1debb28463ad721ddba5b384340a
--
Best regards
George
