Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 12/03/2024 à 01:01, George Stark a écrit :
> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
> Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à 
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Hello Andy
> 
> On 3/7/24 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:40 AM George Stark 
>> <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>>   Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you 
>>> helped alot
>>>   to make this patch happen.
>>
>> You also need to figure out who should be the author of the patch and
>> probably add a (missing) Co-developed-by. After all you should also
>> follow the correct order of SoBs.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> I explained in the other letter as I see it. So I'd leave myself
> as author and add appropriate tag with Christophe's name.
> BTW what do you mean by correct SoB order?
> Is it alphabetical order or order of importance?
> 

The correct order is to first have the Author's SoB.