Pull driver core fixes from Danilo Krummrich:

 - Fix a race condition in Devres::drop(). This depends on two other
   patches:
     - (Minimal) Rust abstractions for struct completion
     - Let Revocable indicate whether its data is already being revoked

 - Fix Devres to avoid exposing the internal Revocable

 - Add .mailmap entry for Danilo Krummrich

 - Add Madhavan Srinivasan to embargoed-hardware-issues.rst

* tag 'driver-core-6.16-rc3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/driver-core/driver-core:
  Documentation: embargoed-hardware-issues.rst: Add myself for Power
  mailmap: add entry for Danilo Krummrich
  rust: devres: do not dereference to the internal Revocable
  rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop()
  rust: revocable: indicate whether `data` has been revoked already
  rust: completion: implement initial abstraction

Pull Rust fix from Miguel Ojeda:

  - 'hrtimer': fix future compile error when the 'impl_has_hr_timer!'
    macro starts to get called

* tag 'rust-fixes-6.16' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ojeda/linux:
  rust: time: Fix compile error in impl_has_hr_timer macro

We can't expose direct access to the internal Revocable, since this
allows users to directly revoke the internal Revocable without Devres
having the chance to synchronize with the devres callback -- we have to
guarantee that the internal Revocable has been fully revoked before
the device is fully unbound.

Hence, remove the corresponding Deref implementation and, instead,
provide indirect accessors for the internal Revocable.

Note that we can still support Devres::revoke() by implementing the
required synchronization (which would be almost identical to the
synchronization in Devres::drop()).

Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction")
Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250611174827.380555-1-dakr@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the
wrapped device resource.

The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when
the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the
corresponding device being bound to a driver.

However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30
("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been
(partially) present from the initial version on.

In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and
subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs.
However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device
resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the
corresponding device.

If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that
the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running
concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking
the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If
Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of
the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done
unbinding the corresponding device.

CPU0					CPU1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devres::drop() {			Devres::devres_callback() {
   self.data.revoke() {			   this.data.revoke() {
      is_available.swap() == true
					      is_available.swap == false
					   }
					}

					// [...]
					// device fully unbound
      drop_in_place() {
         // release device resource
      }
   }
}

Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to
user-after-free bugs.

In order to fix this, implement the following logic.

In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the
device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true.

If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(),
concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for
Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource.

Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of
Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually
racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started
revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means
that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we
just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not
be any additional overhead from that.

(Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for
us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by
Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement
the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the
atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a
single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.)

In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not*
successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good.

Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful,
means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked
by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully.

If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres
callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device
resource has been revoked by us, using the completion.

This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point
of time, which is one of the design goals.

Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction")
Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/
Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

Return a boolean from Revocable::revoke() and Revocable::revoke_nosync()
to indicate whether the data has been revoked already.

Return true if the data hasn't been revoked yet (i.e. this call revoked
the data), false otherwise.

This is required by Devres in order to synchronize the completion of the
revoke process.

Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-3-dakr@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

Implement a minimal abstraction for the completion synchronization
primitive.

This initial abstraction only adds complete_all() and
wait_for_completion(), since that is what is required for the subsequent
Devres patch.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-2-dakr@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

Introduce `CpuId::current()`, a constructor that wraps the C function
`raw_smp_processor_id()` to retrieve the current CPU identifier without
guaranteeing stability.

This function should be used only when the caller can ensure that
the CPU ID won't change unexpectedly due to preemption or migration.

Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>

Use the newly defined `CpuId` abstraction instead of raw CPU numbers.

This also fixes a doctest failure for configurations where `nr_cpu_ids <
4`.

The C `cpumask_{set|clear}_cpu()` APIs emit a warning when given an
invalid CPU number — but only if `CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS=y` is set.

Meanwhile, `cpumask_weight()` only considers CPUs up to `nr_cpu_ids`,
which can cause inconsistencies: a CPU number greater than `nr_cpu_ids`
may be set in the mask, yet the weight calculation won't reflect it.

This leads to doctest failures when `nr_cpu_ids < 4`, as the test tries
to set CPUs 2 and 3:

  rust_doctest_kernel_cpumask_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/cpumask.rs:180
  rust_doctest_kernel_cpumask_rs_0: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/cpumask.rs:190

Fixes: 8961b8cb3099 ("rust: cpumask: Add initial abstractions")
Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CANiq72k3ozKkLMinTLQwvkyg9K=BeRxs1oYZSKhJHY-veEyZdg@mail.gmail.com/
Reported-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@kernel.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/87qzzy3ric.fsf@kernel.org/
Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>

This adds abstraction for representing a CPU identifier.

Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>

Fix a compile error in the `impl_has_hr_timer!` macro as follows:

error[E0599]: no method named cast_mut found for raw pointer *mut Foo in the current scope

The `container_of!` macro already returns a mutable pointer when used
in a `*mut T` context so the `.cast_mut()` method is not available.

[ We missed this one because there is no caller yet and it is
  a macro. - Miguel ]

Fixes: 74d6a606c2b3 ("rust: retain pointer mut-ness in `container_of!`")
Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250606020505.3186533-1-fujita.tomonori@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>