On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 06:20:41PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 06:15:43PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > Oh, so you meant adding this to the safety comment. Yes, that makes sense. Maybe
> > ScopeGuard works too, as you say.
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/devres.rs b/rust/kernel/devres.rs
> index 2591cacecb7b..afd73a8c6012 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/devres.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/devres.rs
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
> prelude::*,
> revocable::{Revocable, RevocableGuard},
> sync::{rcu, Completion},
> - types::{ARef, ForeignOwnable, Opaque},
> + types::{ARef, ForeignOwnable, ScopeGuard, Opaque},
> };
> use core::ops::Deref;
>
> @@ -177,15 +177,15 @@ fn data(&self) -> &Revocable<T> {
> // hence `ptr` must be a valid pointer to `Inner`.
> let inner = unsafe { &*ptr.cast::<Inner<T>>() };
>
> + // Ensure that `inner` can't be used anymore after we signal completion of this callback.
> + let inner = ScopeGuard::new_with_data(inner, |inner| inner.devm.complete_all());
> +
> if !inner.data.revoke() {
> // If `revoke()` returns false, it means that `Devres::drop` already started revoking
> // `data` for us. Hence we have to wait until `Devres::drop` signals that it
> // completed revoking `data`.
> inner.revoke.wait_for_completion();
> }
> -
> - // Signal that we're done using `inner`.
> - inner.devm.complete_all();
> }
>
> fn remove_action(&self) -> bool {
>
> Is this what you thought of?
Yep, looks good to me. Thanks!
Regards,
Boqun
