Hi, This patch haven't been updated over the past 3 weeks. Will you check for me? Regards, Daeseok Youn. 2014-04-28 8:21 GMT+09:00 DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@xxxxxxxxx>: > OK. I'll make my patch based on Mark's patch. > Thanks. > > Daeseok Youn. > > 2014-04-27 3:48 GMT+09:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:39:38AM +0900, DaeSeok Youn wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> please check below my comments. >>> >>> 2014-04-25 23:41 GMT+09:00 Mark Hounschell <markh@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> > On 04/25/2014 08:59 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:29:41AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote: >>> >>> On 04/25/2014 07:02 AM, DaeSeok Youn wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Dan. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 2014-04-25 18:26 GMT+09:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>>>> Mark, maybe you should add yourself to the MAINTAINERS entry for this >>> >>>>> driver? >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll look into this. I am clueless on what that would actually mean. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Just add your name with Lidza in the MAINTAINERS file so that people >>> >> will CC you on all the patches. >>> >> >>> >> DIGI EPCA PCI PRODUCTS >>> >> M: Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >> L: driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> S: Maintained >>> >> F: drivers/staging/dgap/ >>> >> >>> >> You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but you seem to be working >>> >> on this driver and I'm going to refer questions to you either way. :P >>> >> >>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:04:59PM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote: >>> >>>>>> @@ -1263,7 +1277,8 @@ static int dgap_tty_register(struct board_t *brd) >>> >>>>>> /* Register tty devices */ >>> >>>>>> rc = tty_register_driver(brd->SerialDriver); >>> >>>>>> if (rc < 0) >>> >>>>>> - return rc; >>> >>>>>> + goto free_print_ttys; >>> >>>>>> + >>> >>>>>> brd->dgap_Major_Serial_Registered = TRUE; >>> >>>>>> dgap_BoardsByMajor[brd->SerialDriver->major] = brd; >>> >>>>>> brd->dgap_Serial_Major = brd->SerialDriver->major; >>> >>>>>> @@ -1273,13 +1288,29 @@ static int dgap_tty_register(struct board_t *brd) >>> >>>>>> /* Register Transparent Print devices */ >>> >>>>>> rc = tty_register_driver(brd->PrintDriver); >>> >>>>>> if (rc < 0) >>> >>>>>> - return rc; >>> >>>>>> + goto unregister_serial_drv; >>> >>>>>> + >>> >>>>>> brd->dgap_Major_TransparentPrint_Registered = TRUE; >>> >>>>>> dgap_BoardsByMajor[brd->PrintDriver->major] = brd; >>> >>>>>> brd->dgap_TransparentPrint_Major = brd->PrintDriver->major; >>> >>>>>> } >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> return rc; >>> >>>>>> + >>> >>>>>> +unregister_serial_drv: >>> >>>>>> + tty_unregister_driver(brd->SerialDriver); >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> We only register the ->SerialDriver if someone else hasn't registered it >>> >>>>> first? So this should be: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> if (we_were_the_ones_who_registered_the_serial_driver) >>> >>>>> tty_unregister_driver(brd->SerialDriver); >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I haven't followed looked at this. Who else is registering the serial >>> >>>>> driver? You have looked at this, what do you think? Or Mark. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> registering the brd->XxxxxDriver is only done when a board is detected >>> >>> and only during the firmware_load process. If we fail to >>> >>> tty_register_driver do we _need_ to tty_unregister_driver? Isn't that >>> >>> like freeing after an alloc failure? >>> >> >>> >> The allocation is conditional so the free should be conditional. If we >>> >> didn't allocate it, then we shouldn't free it. >>> >> >>> >> It wouldn't have even been a question except I'm not sure the allocation >>> >> is *really* conditional because brd->dgap_Major_Serial_Registered might >>> >> always be "false" like you guys seem to be saying. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think brd struct is from dgap_Board array as global static variable >>> >>>> when this function is >>> >>>> called. So brd->dgap_Major_Serial_Registered is always "false". >>> >>>> If dgap_NumBoards is less than MAXBOARDS, brd->SerialDriver should be >>> >>>> registered. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm not sure.. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't see any check for (dgap_NumBoards < MAXBOARDS), which I think I >>> >>> probably should, but I do see we are calling dgap_tty_register, which >>> >>> can fail, without actually checking the return value. Also, yes, >>> >>> dgap_Major_Xxxx_Registered seems to be always "false" until registered, >>> >>> and it looks like dgap_Major_Xxxxx_Registered flags could be removed >>> >>> because the only places we can unregister is at module_cleanup or >>> >>> "after" it is already registered. >>> >>> >>> >>> What is the driver _supposed_ to do if we fail something on the second >>> >>> or later board? Is the driver supposed to cleanup and exit or are we >>> >>> supposed to stay loaded for the board/boards that are usable? >>> >> >>> >> Stay loaded. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Then these tests on brd->dgap_Major_Serial_Registered need to stay in >>> > there. If I have 3 boards and the second fails in some way, if I rmmod >>> > the driver they will protect from unregistering a never registered one. >>> > At least in the unregister code path. There is probably no need for them >>> > in the register code path. I'll work up a patch for this. >>> >>> Should I update my patch? >>> >>> I think "if (!brd->dgap_Major_XXX_Registered)" line can be removed in this >>> function, because if tty_register_driver() is failed just set "false" >>> to "dgap_Major_XXX_Registered". >> >> Mark sent a patch to remove the check. Could you redo your patch based >> on his? >> >> regards, >> dan carpenter >> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
