Re: [PATCH 3/7] hwspinlock: Introduce hwspin_lock_bust()

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 17/05/2024 00:58, Chris Lew wrote:
> From: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When a remoteproc crashes or goes down unexpectedly this can result in
> a state where locks held by the remoteproc will remain locked possibly
> resulting in deadlock. This new API hwspin_lock_bust() allows
> hwspinlock implementers to define a bust operation for freeing previously
> acquired hwspinlocks after verifying ownership of the acquired lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst     | 11 +++++++++++
>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c     | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-

Shouldn't this be added to drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c ?

>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h |  3 +++
>   include/linux/hwspinlock.h               |  6 ++++++
>   4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
> index c1c2c827b575..6ee94cc6d3b7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
> @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ is already free).
>   
>   Should be called from a process context (might sleep).
>   
> +::
> +
> +  int hwspin_lock_bust(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, unsigned int id);

I don't think this is a geat name "bust" looks alot like "burst" and I 
don't think aligns well with the established namespace.

Why not simply qcom_hwspinlock_unlock_force() - which is what you are 
doing - forcing the hw spinlock to unlock.

---
bod