On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:05:29 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:52 AM Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:29:55 +0100 > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:03 PM Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:31:59 +0100 > > > > Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:21:11 +0100 > > > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:37 PM Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > add_mtd_device() can fail. We should always check its return value > > > > > > > and gracefully handle the failure case. Fix the call sites where this > > > > > > > not done (in mtdpart.c) and add a __must_check attribute to the > > > > > > > prototype to avoid this kind of mistakes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > No Fixes or Cc-stable tag here, as this seems to have worked just fine > > > > > > > without checking add_mtd_device() ret code until we started to expose > > > > > > > MTD devices as NVMEM providers (queued for 4.21). > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87feac02-e955-1897-d4a4-d6d6d1082e45@xxxxxxxxx/t/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Your patch is very similar to mine, so the crash is gone. > > > > > > > > > > Oops, sorry about that. I completely forgot about this patch. It seems > > > > > the discussion led to a different conclusion though (patch > > > > > allocate_partitions() to reject wrong parts early) and the v2 was never > > > > > sent (or I missed it). Anyway, I guess we should have done both (check > > > > > add_mtd_device() ret code everywhere and patch allocate_partitions() to > > > > > reject bad parts early). > > > > > > > > > > > However, the warning is still there: > > > > > > > > > > > > m25p80 spi0.0: s25sl032p (4096 Kbytes) > > > > > > 3 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device spi0.0 > > > > > > Creating 3 MTD partitions on "spi0.0": > > > > > > 0x000000000000-0x000000080000 : "loader" > > > > > > 0x000000080000-0x000000600000 : "user" > > > > > > mtd: partition "user" extends beyond the end of device "spi0.0" -- > > > > > > size truncated to 0x380000 > > > > > > 0x000000600000-0x000004000000 : "flash" > > > > > > mtd: partition "flash" is out of reach -- disabled > > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c:571 > > > > > > add_mtd_device+0x90/0x3b0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, only one partition is created, covering the full size of the > > > > > > device: > > > > > > > > > > > > # cat /proc/partitions > > > > > > major minor #blocks name > > > > > > > > > > > > 31 0 4096 mtdblock0 > > > > > > > > > > > > While I would expect two partitions, "loader" and truncated "user": > > > > > > > > > > > > 31 0 512 mtdblock0 > > > > > > 31 1 3584 mtdblock1 > > > > > > > > > > Yes, makes sense, I guess your patch was better than mine :-/. Can you > > > > > try with the following diff applied and let me know if it solves the > > > > > problem? > > > > > > > > Gentle ping: is this diff fixing your problem, and do you want me to > > > > send a proper patch for it or should I let you send one? > > > > > > Yes, the diff below fixes the partitions for me, so > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Note that the warning is still there, but that's probably OK. > > > > You mean the pr_warn() or the WARN_ON() backtrace? The former is > > expected not the latter. > > The WARN_ON() backtrace is still there. I don't see a WARN_ON() at drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c:571. Which branch are you using for your tests? ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/