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

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 17/05/2024 10:07, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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.

hmm looking again, I think _core is the right place and bust() is 
consistent with bust_spinlocks();

meh

---
bod