Hi Mark,
Thanks for review.
Mark Brown wrote on 12.12.2014 17:36:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 04:48:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
track is a generic framework for safe tracking presence of any kernel objects
having an id. There are no special requirements about type of object or its
id. Id shall be unique.
This is pretty confusing, when it talks about "kernel objects" that
sounds like it means struct kobject but in fact there's no connection
with that or any of the other kernel object stuff. Perhaps it makes
sense but it should be addressed.
OK
Typical usage of the framework by consumer looks as follow:
1. Consumer registers notifier callback for objects with given id.
This is also a custom thing not connected with the notifier mechanism
implemented by struct notifier_block. Again this should probably be
addressed, even if it's just used internally it seems like there should
be some opportunity for code reuse here.
I though about using notfier_block, but beside the struct itself there
wouldn't be too much code to reuse. In my previous attempt of this
framework more arguments were passed to the callback so I have dropped
this idea completely, but now after simplifying the callback it fits better.
+ case track_task_up:
+ node = track_get_node(track, task->type, task->id, true);
+
+ node->up = true;
+ node->data = task->data;
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(itb, node->itb_next, &node->itb_head,
+ list)
+ itb->callback(itb, node->data, true);
+ return;
+ case track_task_down:
I'm not sure the up and down naming is the most obvious naming for
users. It's obviously inspired by semaphores but it's not entirely
obvious that this is going to make things clear and meaningful for
someone trying to understand the interface.
In my 1st attempt I have called the framework interface_tracker, so it
was named ifup/ifdown after unix commands:) Now it is less obvious.
Finding good names is always painful, anyway I will think about it.
+static int track_process_queue(struct tracker *track)
+{
+ struct track_task *task, *ptask = NULL;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ bool empty;
+
+ /* Queue non-emptiness is used as a sentinel to prevent processing
+ * by multiple threads, so we cannot delete entry from the queue
+ * until it is processed.
+ */
+ while (true) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&track->queue_lock, flags);
+
+ if (ptask)
+ list_del(&ptask->list);
+ task = list_first_entry(&track->queue,
+ struct track_task, list);
+
+ empty = list_empty(&track->queue);
+ if (empty)
+ complete_all(&track->queue_empty);
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&track->queue_lock, flags);
Here we get a task from the head of the list and drop the lock, leaving
the task on the list...
Yes and it is explained in the comment few lines above.
+ kfree(ptask);
+
+ if (empty)
+ break;
+
+ track_process_task(track, task);
...we then go and do some other stuff, including processing that task,
without the lock or or any other means I can see of excluding other
users before going round and removing the task. This seems to leave us
vulnerable to double execution.
No, if you look at track_add_task function you will see that the queue
is processed only if it is initially empty, otherwise the task is only
added to the queue, so it will be processed after processing earlier tasks.
So the rule is that if someone add task to the queue it checks if the
queue is empty, in such case it process all tasks from the queue until
the queue becomes empty, even the tasks added by other processed.
This way all tasks are serialized.
I *think* this is supposed to be
handled by your comment "Provider should take care of calling
notifications synchronously in proper order" in the changelog but that's
a bit obscure, it's not specific about what the requirements are (or
what the limits are supposed to be on the notification callbacks).
No, this comment is just to avoid advertising object (ie calling
track_up) that can be just removed by concurrent thread.
I'm also unclear what is supposed to happen if adding a notification
races with removing the thing being watched.
The sequence should be always as follows:
1. create thing, then call track_up(thing).
...
2. call track_down(thing) then remove thing.
If we put 1 into probe and 2 into remove callback of the driver it will
be safe - we are synchronised by device_lock. But if, for some reason,
we want to create object after probe we should do own synchronization or
just put device_lock around 1. The same applies if we want to remove
object earlier. This is the comment above about. I will expand it to
more verbose explanation.
Regards
Andrzej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
