[PATCH v5 3/4] mtd: core: protect access to MTD devices while in suspend

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:33:50 +0100
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> boris.brezillon at collabora.com wrote on Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:28:01 +0100:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:10:25 +0100
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Sean,
> > > 
> > > sean at geanix.com wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:25:35 +0100:
> > >     
> > > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 03:28:11PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:      
> > > > > Hi Sean,
> > > > > 
> > > > > sean at geanix.com wrote on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:07:21 +0100:
> > > > >         
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 02:39:58PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:        
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >           
> > > > > > > > > Fine by me, lets drop this series.          
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > FYI I've dropped the entire series from mtd/next. I'm waiting for the
> > > > > > > fix discussed below (without abusing the chip mutex ;-) ).          
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cool, looking forward to test a patch series :)        
> > > > > 
> > > > > Test? You mean "write"? :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Miquèl        
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Miquel,
> > > > 
> > > > Should we us a atomic for the suspended variable?      
> > > 
> > > I haven't thought about it extensively, an atomic variable sound fine
> > > but I am definitely not a locking expert...    
> > 
> > No need to use an atomic if the variable is already protected by a lock
> > when accessed, and this seems to be case.  
> 
> Maybe there was a confusion about this lock: I think Boris just do not
> want the core to take any lock during a suspend operation. But you can
> still use locks, as long as you release them before suspending.
> 
> And also, that chip lock might not be the one you want to take because
> it's been introduced for another purpose.

Access to the suspended field is already protected by the chip lock,
and I think it's just fine to keep it this way.