From: alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com (Alexander Stein)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: perf: Mark as non-removable
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:19:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2559413.O5mI12kdOo@ws-stein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161222224547.GA30170@remoulade>
Hi,
On Thursday 22 December 2016 22:48:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 04:03:40PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > This driver can only built into the kernel. So disallow driver bind/unbind
> > and also prevent a kernel error in case DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE is
> > enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c index b942349..795e373 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > @@ -2029,6 +2029,7 @@ static int armv7_pmu_device_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)>
> > static struct platform_driver armv7_pmu_driver = {
> >
> > .driver = {
> >
> > .name = "armv7-pmu",
> >
> > + .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> >
> > .of_match_table = armv7_pmu_of_device_ids,
> >
> > },
>
> While this patch looks correct, the other perf_event_* drivers (e.g. those
> under arch/arm/) will need similar treatment.
Yep, but this is the only one I can actually test.
> More generally, updating each and every driver in this manner seems like a
> scattergun approach that is tiresome and error prone.
>
> IMO, it would be vastly better for a higher layer to enforce that we don't
> attempt to unbind drivers where the driver does not have a remove callback,
> as is the case here (and I suspect most over cases where
> DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE is blowing up).
You mean something like this?
> diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> index 4eabfe2..3b6c1a2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> @@ -158,6 +158,9 @@ int driver_register(struct device_driver *drv)
>
> printk(KERN_WARNING "Driver '%s' needs updating - please use
> "
>
> "bus_type methods\n", drv->name);
>
> + if (!drv->remove)
> + drv->suppress_bind_attrs = true;
> +
>
> other = driver_find(drv->name, drv->bus);
> if (other) {
>
> printk(KERN_ERR "Error: Driver '%s' is already registered, "
> Is there any reason that can't be enforced at the bus layer, say?
I'm not sure if the change above works with remove functions set in struct
bus_type too.
But on the other hand this would hide errors in drivers which are actually
removable but do not cleanup properly which DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE tries to
detect. By setting .suppress_bind_attrs = true explicitely you state "This
driver cannot be removed!", so the remove callback is not missing by accident.
Best regards,
Alexander
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: perf: Mark as non-removable
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:19:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2559413.O5mI12kdOo@ws-stein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161222224547.GA30170@remoulade>
Hi,
On Thursday 22 December 2016 22:48:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 04:03:40PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > This driver can only built into the kernel. So disallow driver bind/unbind
> > and also prevent a kernel error in case DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE is
> > enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c index b942349..795e373 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v7.c
> > @@ -2029,6 +2029,7 @@ static int armv7_pmu_device_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)>
> > static struct platform_driver armv7_pmu_driver = {
> >
> > .driver = {
> >
> > .name = "armv7-pmu",
> >
> > + .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> >
> > .of_match_table = armv7_pmu_of_device_ids,
> >
> > },
>
> While this patch looks correct, the other perf_event_* drivers (e.g. those
> under arch/arm/) will need similar treatment.
Yep, but this is the only one I can actually test.
> More generally, updating each and every driver in this manner seems like a
> scattergun approach that is tiresome and error prone.
>
> IMO, it would be vastly better for a higher layer to enforce that we don't
> attempt to unbind drivers where the driver does not have a remove callback,
> as is the case here (and I suspect most over cases where
> DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE is blowing up).
You mean something like this?
> diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> index 4eabfe2..3b6c1a2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> @@ -158,6 +158,9 @@ int driver_register(struct device_driver *drv)
>
> printk(KERN_WARNING "Driver '%s' needs updating - please use
> "
>
> "bus_type methods\n", drv->name);
>
> + if (!drv->remove)
> + drv->suppress_bind_attrs = true;
> +
>
> other = driver_find(drv->name, drv->bus);
> if (other) {
>
> printk(KERN_ERR "Error: Driver '%s' is already registered, "
> Is there any reason that can't be enforced at the bus layer, say?
I'm not sure if the change above works with remove functions set in struct
bus_type too.
But on the other hand this would hide errors in drivers which are actually
removable but do not cleanup properly which DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE tries to
detect. By setting .suppress_bind_attrs = true explicitely you state "This
driver cannot be removed!", so the remove callback is not missing by accident.
Best regards,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-21 15:03 [PATCH v2 0/2] mark driver as non-removable Alexander Stein
2016-12-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein
2016-12-21 15:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/perf: arm_pmu: Use devm_ allocators Alexander Stein
2016-12-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein
2016-12-21 15:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: perf: Mark as non-removable Alexander Stein
2016-12-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein
2016-12-22 22:48 ` Mark Rutland
2016-12-22 22:48 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-04 9:19 ` Alexander Stein [this message]
2017-01-04 9:19 ` Alexander Stein
2017-01-04 11:30 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-04 11:30 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-04 11:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-01-04 11:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-01-04 11:46 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-04 11:46 ` Mark Rutland
2017-01-04 18:17 ` Will Deacon
2017-01-04 18:17 ` Will Deacon
2016-12-21 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] mark driver " Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-12-21 23:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2559413.O5mI12kdOo@ws-stein \
--to=alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.