On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM George Stark <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Using of devm API leads to a certain order of releasing resources.
> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() will be
> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init()
Missing period at the end.
....
> Suggested by-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Needs properly spelled tag.
...
> +static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + /*
> + * When CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is off mutex_destroy is just a nop so
mutex_destroy()
> + * no really need to register it in devm subsystem.
in the devm
> + */
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
Without seeing much context can't say if there is a better (more
ordered) place to squeeze a new header to. Please, check.
...
After addressing the above comments
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
