On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:04:07PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:39:15 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:41:44 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > devlink_register() can't fail and always returns success, but all drivers
> > > are obligated to check returned status anyway. This adds a lot of boilerplate
> > > code to handle impossible flow.
> > >
> > > Make devlink_register() void and simplify the drivers that use that
> > > API call.
> >
> > Unlike unused functions bringing back error handling may be
> > non-trivial. I'd rather you deferred such cleanups until you're
> > ready to post your full rework and therefore give us some confidence
> > the revert will not be needed.
>
> If you disagree you gotta repost, new devlink_register call got added
> in the meantime.
This is exactly what I afraid, new devlink API users are added faster
than I can cleanup them.
For example, let's take a look on newly added ipc_devlink_init(), it is
called conditionally "if (stage == IPC_MEM_EXEC_STAGE_BOOT) {". How can
it be different stage if we are in driver .probe() routine?
They also introduced devlink_sio.devlink_read_pend and
devlink_sio.read_sem to protect from something that right position of
devlink_register() will fix. I also have serious doubts that their
current protection is correct, once they called to devlink_params_publish()
the user can crash the system, because he can access the parameters before
they initialized their protection.
So yes, I disagree. We will need to make sure that devlink_register()
can't fail and it will make life easier for everyone (no need to unwind)
while we put that command being last in probe sequence.
If I repost, will you take it? I don't want to waste anyone time if it
is not.
Thanks
