On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 11:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:38 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> +int driver_set_override(struct device *dev, const char **override,
> >> + const char *s, size_t len)
> >> +{
> >> + const char *new, *old;
> >> + char *cp;
> >
> >> + if (!override || !s)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Still not sure if we should distinguish (s == NULL && len == 0) from
> > (s != NULL && len == 0).
> > Supplying the latter seems confusing (yes, I see that in the old code). Perhaps
> > !s test, in case you want to leave it, should be also commented.
>
> The old semantics were focused on sysfs usage, so clearing is by passing
> an empty string. In the case of sysfs empty string is actually "\n". I
> intend to keep the semantics also for the in-kernel usage and in such
> case empty string can be also "".
>
> If I understand your comment correctly, you propose to change it to NULL
> for in-kernel usage, but that would change the semantics.
Yes. It's also possible to have a wrapper for sysfs use.
> > Another approach is to split above to two checks and move !s after !len.
>
> I don't follow why... The !override and !s are invalid uses. !len is a
> valid user for internal callers, just like "\n" is for sysfs.
I understand but always supplying s maybe an overhead for in-kernel usages.
In any case, it's not critical right now, just a remark that it can be modified.
> >> + /*
> >> + * The stored value will be used in sysfs show callback (sysfs_emit()),
> >> + * which has a length limit of PAGE_SIZE and adds a trailing newline.
> >> + * Thus we can store one character less to avoid truncation during sysfs
> >> + * show.
> >> + */
> >> + if (len >= (PAGE_SIZE - 1))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Perhaps explain the case in the comment here?
>
> You mean the case we discuss here (to clear override with "")? Sure.
Yep. Before the below check.
> >> + if (!len) {
> >> + device_lock(dev);
> >> + old = *override;
> >> + *override = NULL;
> >
> >> + device_unlock(dev);
> >> + goto out_free;
> >
> > You may deduplicate this one, by
> >
> > goto out_unlock_free;
> >
> > But I understand your intention to keep lock-unlock in one place, so
> > perhaps dropping that label would be even better in this case and
> > keeping it
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> > kfree(old);
> > return 0;
> >
> > here instead of goto.
>
> Slightly more code, but indeed maybe easier to follow. I'll do like this.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
