On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 16:01 +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > 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. > Yeah, fair enough... IMHO, then I would say that we should still have the workqueue moved to devlink_class_init() and I can then follow up with a patch to do BUG_ON(ret) in it. Alternatively I can also just move it in the follow up patch but I don't think it makes much sense. - Nuno Sá
