Re: phandle patch review?

Re: phandle patch review?

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:59:53 -0700
> Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:39:59 +0900
>> Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Andres Salomon
>> > <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
>> > > Hi Grant,
>> > >
>> > > I'm assuming the sparc patches can go through your tree as well.
>> > > Please let me know if anything else needs to happen, now that we
>> > > have an ACK from davem.
>> >
>> > Did the phandle -> types.h issues get sorted out?  I can't remember.
>>
>> The relevant thread was here:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/140991/
>>
>> I found Sam's initial comment unclear, so I asked for clarification
>> (specifying that we didn't need phandle to be exported to userspace);
>> his response was:
>>
>> "So the above looks good considerign that userspace
>> so far does not require ihanlde/phandle."
>>
>> I left it open-ended regarding whether or not userspace might want
>> phandle/ihandle to be exported (that's more a question for you
>> flat devicetree folks :) , but for my purposes not having it exposed
>> to userspace is just fine.
>
>
>
> So yeah, please let me know if there's anything outstanding that I
> missed that would keep the patches from getting merged.

Okay, I'm confused.  As you say, asm/openprom.h is exported.  None of
openprom.h is protect with __KERNEL__, so all of it gets exposed to
userspace.  You're patch adds phandle to the __KERNEL__ protected
section of types.h, which means that it is unavailable to userspace.
In which case anything from userspace including asm/openprom.h will
fail to compile, or am I missing something?

g.

Re: phandle patch review?

[Andres Salomon]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:01:28 -0600
Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:59:53 -0700
> > Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:39:59 +0900
> >> Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Andres Salomon
> >> > <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> >> > > Hi Grant,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm assuming the sparc patches can go through your tree as
> >> > > well. Please let me know if anything else needs to happen, now
> >> > > that we have an ACK from davem.
> >> >
> >> > Did the phandle -> types.h issues get sorted out?  I can't
> >> > remember.
> >>
> >> The relevant thread was here:
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/140991/
> >>
> >> I found Sam's initial comment unclear, so I asked for clarification
> >> (specifying that we didn't need phandle to be exported to
> >> userspace); his response was:
> >>
> >> "So the above looks good considerign that userspace
> >> so far does not require ihanlde/phandle."
> >>
> >> I left it open-ended regarding whether or not userspace might want
> >> phandle/ihandle to be exported (that's more a question for you
> >> flat devicetree folks :) , but for my purposes not having it
> >> exposed to userspace is just fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > So yeah, please let me know if there's anything outstanding that I
> > missed that would keep the patches from getting merged.
> 
> Okay, I'm confused.  As you say, asm/openprom.h is exported.  None of
> openprom.h is protect with __KERNEL__, so all of it gets exposed to
> userspace.  You're patch adds phandle to the __KERNEL__ protected
> section of types.h, which means that it is unavailable to userspace.
> In which case anything from userspace including asm/openprom.h will
> fail to compile, or am I missing something?
> 

Ah, you're right, so phandle will need to be exported to userspace as
well.  I will send an updated patch.