Re: [PATCH 2/3] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API

[Alban <albeu@free.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1743 bytes --]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:34:19 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:23:16 +0000
> Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> >   
> > > +	mutex_lock(&mtd_nvmem_list_lock);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(mtd_nvmem, &mtd_nvmem_list, list) {
> > > +		if (mtd_nvmem->mtd == mtd) {
> > > +			list_del(&mtd_nvmem->list);
> > > +			found = true;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&mtd_nvmem_list_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	if (found) {
> > > +		if (nvmem_unregister(mtd_nvmem->nvmem))
> > > +			dev_err(&mtd->dev,
> > > +				"Failed to unregister NVMEM device\n");    
> > 
> > I will be nice to feedback error to top layer, as it does not make sense 
> > to remove providers if there are active consumers using it.
> > 
> > del_mtd_device(), unregister_mtd_user() have return values, I see no 
> > reason why notifiers  should not return errors.
> > May be if we should fix the remove() call backs to handle and return errors.  
> 
> It's more complicated than that. What should you do if one of the
> ->remove() notifier in the middle of the list is returning an error?  
> Some of them have already taken the remove notification into account.
> Should we call ->add() back on those notifiers? Also, I'm not sure they
> are all safe against double ->remove() calls, so if we might be in
> trouble when the removal is retried.

Re-adding make no sense as that could also fails. Keep it simple,
remove the notifier from the list when remove() succeed, abort when one
fails. In such a scenario that mean there is a dependency, the sys
admin should then solve this dependency and re-trigger the MTD removal.

Alban

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]