29.11.2021 03:36, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:53:51AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 29.11.2021 00:17, Michał Mirosław пишет:
>>>> I'm having trouble with parsing this comment. Could you please try to
>>>> rephrase it? I don't see how you could check whether power-off handler
>>>> is available if you'll mix all handlers together.
>>> If notify_call_chain() would be fixed to return NOTIFY_OK if any call
>>> returned NOTIFY_OK, then this would be a clear way to gather the
>>> answer if any of the handlers will attempt the final action (reboot or
>>> power off).
>> Could you please show a code snippet that implements your suggestion?
>
> A rough idea is this:
>
> static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> unsigned long val, void *v,
> int nr_to_call, int *nr_calls)
> {
> - int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
> + int ret, result = NOTIFY_DONE;
> struct notifier_block *nb, *next_nb;
>
> nb = rcu_dereference_raw(*nl);
>
> while (nb && nr_to_call) {
> ...
> ret = nb->notifier_call(nb, val, v);
> +
> + /* Assuming NOTIFY_STOP-carrying return is always greater than non-stopping one. */
> + if (result < ret)
> + result = ret;
> ...
> }
> - return ret;
> + return result;
> }
>
> Then:
>
> bool prepare_reboot()
> {
> int ret = xx_notifier_call_chain(&shutdown_notifier, PREPARE_REBOOT, ...);
> return ret == NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> And the return value would signify whether the reboot will be attempted
> when calling the chain for the REBOOT action. (Analogously for powering off.)
If you started to execute call chain, then you began the power-off /
restart sequence, this is a point of no return. Sorry, I still don't
understand what you're trying to achieve.
The approach of having separate call chains is simple and intuitive, I
don't see reasons to change it.
