Re: [PATCH v15 00/13] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes

[Peter Rosin]

On 2017-06-03 12:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:26:27PM +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> From: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> Philipp found problems in v14 with using a mutex for locking that was
>>> the outcome of the review for v13, so I'm now using a semaphore instead
>>> of the rwsem that was in v13. That at least got rid of the scary call
>>> to downgrade_write. However, I'm still unsure about what you actually
>>> meant with your comment about lack of sparse markings [1]. I did add
>>> __must_check to the funcs that selects the mux, but I've got this
>>> feeling that this is not what you meant?
>>
>> I thought there was a way to mark a function as requiring a lock be held
>> when it is being called.  Does sparse not support that anymore?
> 
> Anyway, not a big deal.  I still worry about the calls blocking when
> people are not expecting them to, but it is just the nature of th api I
> guess.

Yeah, first come first serve. I don't know what else I can do, except maybe
follow up with a timed version of mux_control_select()...

> All now queued up, nice work, thanks for sticking with this.

*big sigh of relief*

I was getting pretty fed up with the series to be honest :-), so thanks
a bunch for taking it!

Cheers,
peda