Hi Nuno, On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:50:44 +0100 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense but then the only thing I still don't fully get is why > > > > > we > > > > > have > > > > > a separate devlink_class_init() initcall for registering the devlink > > > > > class > > > > > (which can also fail)... > > > > > > > > Well, I haven't added it. :-) > > > > > > > > > What I take from the above is that we should fail the > > > > > driver model if one of it's fundamental components fails so I would say > > > > > we > > > > > should merge devlink_class_init() with device_init() otherwise it's a > > > > > bit > > > > > confusing (at least to me) and gives the idea that it's ok for the > > > > > driver > > > > > model > > > > > to exist without the links (unless I'm missing some other reason for the > > > > > devlink > > > > > init function). > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Feel free to send a patch along these lines, chances are that it will > > > > be popular. ;-) > > > > > > I was actually thinking about that but I think I encountered the reason why > > > we > > > have it like this... devices_init() is called from driver_init() and there > > > we > > > have: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > devices_init(); > > > buses_init(); > > > classes_init(); > > > > > > ... > > > > > > So classes are initialized after devices which means we can't really do > > > class_register(&devlink_class) from devices_init(). Unless, of course, we > > > re- > > > order things in driver_init() but that would be a questionable change at the > > > very least. > > > > > > So, while I agree with what you've said, I'm still not sure if mixing > > > devlink > > > stuff between devices_init() and devlink_class_init() is the best thing to > > > do > > > given that we already have the case where devlink_class_init() can fail > > > while > > > the driver model is up. > > > > So why don't you make devlink_class_init() do a BUG() on failure > > instead of returning an error? IMO crashing early is better than > > crashing later or otherwise failing in a subtle way due to a missed > > dependency. > > Well, I do agree with that... Maybe that's something that Herve can sneak in > this patch? Otherwise, I can later (after this one is applied) send a patch for > it. Well, I don't thing that this have to be part of this current series. It is an other topic and should be handled out of this current series. Hervé
