On 2024-02-28 08:10, Xu Yilun wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:49:06PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote: >> >> >> On 2024-02-21 15:37, Xu Yilun wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:11:26PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2024-02-18 11:05, Xu Yilun wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:47:34PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2024-02-04 06:15, Xu Yilun wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:44:01PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote: >>>>>>>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ >>>>>>>>>> + __fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) >>>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager * >>>>>>>>>> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); >>>>>>>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, >>>>>>>>>> + struct module *owner); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \ >>>>>>>>>> + __fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE) >>>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager * >>>>>>>>>> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, >>>>>>>>>> - const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv); >>>>>>>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, >>>>>>>>>> + const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner); >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ >>>>>>>>>> + __devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) >>>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager * >>>>>>>>>> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); >>>>>>>>>> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, >>>>>>>>>> + struct module *owner); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body >>>>>>>> (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer >>>>>>>> to fix that in place? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No need, I can fix it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged? >>>>>>>>> If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC >>>>>>>> to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would >>>>>>>> simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you >>>>>>>> think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest take your fix to linux-fpga/for-next now. If your try_module_get() >>>>>>> proposal is applied before the end of this cycle, we could re-evaluate >>>>>>> this patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's fine by me. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I still found issues about this solution. >>>>> >>>>> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr) >>>>> { >>>>> dev_info(&mgr->dev, "%s %s\n", __func__, mgr->name); >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * If the low level driver provides a method for putting fpga into >>>>> * a desired state upon unregister, do it. >>>>> */ >>>>> fpga_mgr_fpga_remove(mgr); >>>>> >>>>> mutex_lock(&mgr->mops_mutex); >>>>> >>>>> mgr->mops = NULL; >>>>> >>>>> mutex_unlock(&mgr->mops_mutex); >>>>> >>>>> device_unregister(&mgr->dev); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Note that fpga_mgr_unregister() doesn't have to be called in module_exit(). >>>>> So if we do fpga_mgr_get() then fpga_mgr_unregister(), We finally had a >>>>> fpga_manager dev without mops, this is not what the user want and cause >>>>> problem when using this fpga_manager dev for other FPGA APIs. >>>> >>>> How about moving mgr->mops = NULL from fpga_mgr_unregister() to >>>> class->dev_release()? In that way, mops will be set to NULL only when the >>>> manager dev refcount reaches 0. >>> >>> I'm afraid it doesn't help. The lifecycle of the module and the fpga >>> mgr dev is different. >>> >>> We use mops = NULL to indicate module has been freed or will be freed in no >>> time. On the other hand mops != NULL means module is still there, so >>> that try_module_get() could be safely called. It is possible someone >>> has got fpga mgr dev but not the module yet, at that time the module is >>> unloaded, then try_module_get() triggers crash. >>> >>>> >>>> If fpga_mgr_unregister() is called from module_exit(), we are sure that nobody >>>> got the manager dev earlier using fpga_mgr_get(), or it would have bumped up >>> >>> No, someone may get the manager dev but not the module yet, and been >>> scheduled out. >>> >> >> You are right. Overall, it's a bad idea. How about then using an additional >> bool flag instead of "overloading" the mops pointer? Something like: >> >> get: >> if (!mgr->owner_valid || !try_module_get(mgr->mops_owner)) >> >> remove: >> mgr->owner_valid = false; > > I'm not quite sure which function is actually mentioned by "remove". I > assume it should be fpga_mgr_unregister(). Yes, I was referring to fpga_mgr_unregister(). > IIUC this flag means no more reference to fpga mgr, but existing > references are still valid. Yes. > > It works for me. But the name of this flag could be reconsidered to > avoid misunderstanding. The owner is still valid (we still need to put > the owner) but allows no more reference. Maybe "owner_inactive"? Right, owner_valid might be misleading. How about removing any reference to the owner module and name the flag unreg? __fpga_mgr_get: if (mgr->unreg || !try_module_get(mgr->mops_owner)) mgr = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); fpga_mgr_unregister: mgr->unreg = true; > I still wanna this owner reference change been splitted, so that > we could simply revert it when the try_module_get_safe() got accepted. I guess it may take some time to have try_module_get_safe() accepted. What do you prefer to do with the bridge and the region in the meantime? Thanks, Marco
