Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] regulator: simplify locking | From | Dmitry Osipenko <> | Date | Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:40:04 +0300 |
| |
10.08.2020 00:16, Michał Mirosław пишет: > Simplify regulator locking by removing locking around locking. rdev->ref > is now accessed only when the lock is taken. The code still smells fishy, > but now its obvious why. > > Fixes: f8702f9e4aa7 ("regulator: core: Use ww_mutex for regulators locking") > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> > --- > drivers/regulator/core.c | 37 ++++++-------------------------- > include/linux/regulator/driver.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c > index 9e18997777d3..b0662927487c 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c > @@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ > pr_debug("%s: " fmt, rdev_get_name(rdev), ##__VA_ARGS__) > > static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(regulator_ww_class); > -static DEFINE_MUTEX(regulator_nesting_mutex); > static DEFINE_MUTEX(regulator_list_mutex); > static LIST_HEAD(regulator_map_list); > static LIST_HEAD(regulator_ena_gpio_list); > @@ -150,32 +149,13 @@ static bool regulator_ops_is_valid(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int ops) > static inline int regulator_lock_nested(struct regulator_dev *rdev, > struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx) > { > - bool lock = false; > int ret = 0; > > - mutex_lock(®ulator_nesting_mutex); > + if (ww_ctx || !mutex_trylock_recursive(&rdev->mutex.base))
Have you seen comment to the mutex_trylock_recursive()?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.8/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L205
* This function should not be used, _ever_. It is purely for hysterical GEM * raisins, and once those are gone this will be removed.
I knew about this function and I don't think it's okay to use it, hence this is why there is that "nesting_mutex" and "owner" checking.
If you disagree, then perhaps you should make another patch to remove the stale comment to trylock_recursive().
| |