Re: [PATCH 3/5] thermal/core: Remove unneeded mutex_destroy()
From: Daniel Lezcano
Date: Thu Jan 19 2023 - 09:15:37 EST
On 19/01/2023 14:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:48 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19/01/2023 13:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:30 AM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19/01/2023 08:41, Zhang, Rui wrote:
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
If the thermal framework fails to initialize, the mutex can be used
by
the different functions registering a thermal zone anyway.
Hmm, even with no governors and unregistered thermal sysfs class?
IMO, thermal APIs for registering a thermal_zone/cooling_device should
yield early if thermal_init fails.
For other APIs that relies on a valid
thermal_zone_device/thermal_cooling_device pointer, nothing needs to
be changed.
what do you think?
I think you are right.
It would be nice if we can check if the thermal class is registered and
bail out if not. But there is no function to check that AFAICS.
Alternatively we can convert the thermal class static structure to a
pointer and set it to NULL in case of error in thermal_init() ?
It doesn't matter if this is a NULL pointer or a static object that's
clearly marked as unused.
Without introducing another global variable, is it possible to know if
the class is used or not ?
If thermal_class.p is cleared to NULL on class_register() failures in
thermal_init() (unfortunately, the driver core doesn't do that, but
maybe it should - let me cut a patch for that), then it can be used
for that.
It should be in class_unregister() too, right ?
And is it possible to add a class_is_registered() ? in order to prevent
accessing class structure internals ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog