Hello Christophe
On 3/7/24 16:50, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 07/03/2024 à 03:40, George Stark a écrit :
[Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnst...@salutedevices.com.
Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
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()
Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnst...@salutedevices.com>
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
---
Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you helped
alot
to make this patch happen.
Up to you, I sent a RFC patch based on yours with my ideas included
because an exemple is easier than a lot of words for understanding, and
my scripts automatically sets the Signed-off-by: but feel free to change
it to Suggested-by:
Although we had close ideas for the final patch in v4
you encouraged me to do it in the right (=effective) way and go back
from devm-helpers.h to mutex.h in the first place, reinforced the
concept with appropriate examples from existing code, reviewed a lot.
Thanks. Probably Suggested-by: is more suited here
--
Best regards
George
