On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:37 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:17 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 12:42 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > While originally it was fine to format strings using "%pOF" while
> > > > holding devtree_lock, this now causes a deadlock. Lockdep reports:
> > > >
> > > > of_get_parent from of_fwnode_get_parent+0x18/0x24
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > of_fwnode_get_parent from fwnode_count_parents+0xc/0x28
> > > > fwnode_count_parents from fwnode_full_name_string+0x18/0xac
> > > > fwnode_full_name_string from device_node_string+0x1a0/0x404
> > > > device_node_string from pointer+0x3c0/0x534
> > > > pointer from vsnprintf+0x248/0x36c
> > > > vsnprintf from vprintk_store+0x130/0x3b4
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by moving the printing in __of_changeset_entry_apply() outside
> > > > the lock. As the only difference in the the multiple prints is the
> > > > action name, use the existing "action_names" to refactor the prints into
> > > > a single print.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: a92eb7621b9fb2c2 ("lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators")
> > > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v5 (v2 in this series):
> > > > - Move majority of refactoring to separate patch and minimize the fix
> > > > to just moving the print out of the locked section.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patch!
> > >
> > > > --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
> > >
> > > > @@ -648,20 +634,17 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > ret = __of_update_property(ce->np, ce->prop, &old_prop);
> > > > - if (ret) {
> > > > - pr_err("changeset: update_property failed @%pOF/%s\n",
> > > > - ce->np,
> > > > - ce->prop->name);
> > > > - break;
> > > > - }
> > > > break;
> > > > default:
> > > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > }
> > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
> > > >
> > > > - if (ret)
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_err("changeset: apply failed: cset<%p> %-15s %pOF:%s\n",
> > >
> > > Printing the cset pointer will (needlessly?) complicate the EXPECT_*()
> > > handling in the unit test.
> >
> > That's added largely because the other prints which I rework later in
> > this series had them. Either printing the changeset ptr is useful or
> > it isn't. I think people running the unittest and the post-processor
> > can easily enough filter this out when looking at the results.
> > Honestly, even I probably run it less than once a cycle.
>
> Do you have a use for printing the pointer value?
I have no use for overlays in general, so no. :)
I'd assumed it was there to provide a changeset ID to tell which
actions belong to the same changeset. But it's printing the changeset
entry rather than the changeset, so I agree it is not really useful.
Rob
