From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
dmaengine@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] dmaengine: idxd: Do not use devm for 'struct device' object allocation
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:48:09 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210325164809.GB2356281@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4geTG8M2mxJNxN0wxZsQsLbN0U-mr1jjC=3sjyRWOuwmA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:00:04PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:58 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:01:42AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:52 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:13:35AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Which is just:
> > > > >
> > > > > device_initialize()
> > > > > dev_set_name()
> > > > >
> > > > > ...then the name is set as early as the device is ready to filled in
> > > > > with other details. Just checking for dev_set_name() failures does not
> > > > > move the api forward in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't work either as the release function must be set after
> > > > initialize but before dev_set_name(), otherwise we both can't and must
> > > > call put_device() after something like this fails.
> > >
> > > Ugh, true.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I can't see an option other than bite the bullet and fix things.
> > > >
> > > > A static tool to look for these special lifetime rules around the
> > > > driver core would be nice.
> > >
> > > It would... it would also trip over the fact the core itself fails to
> > > check for dev_set_name() failures and also relies on !dev_name() as a
> > check after-the-fact.
> >
> > Where can I find the !dev_name() check?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/base/core.c#n3153
I would just add error checking here, it seems baffling not to have it
Why didn't we use this simple device enumeration stuff for aux bus?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-25 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-03 14:56 [PATCH v5] dmaengine: idxd: Do not use devm for 'struct device' object allocation Dave Jiang
2021-03-04 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-03-04 18:20 ` Dave Jiang
2021-03-24 5:07 ` Dan Williams
2021-03-24 11:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-03-24 16:13 ` Dan Williams
2021-03-24 16:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-03-24 17:01 ` Dan Williams
2021-03-24 19:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-03-24 20:00 ` Dan Williams
2021-03-25 16:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-03-25 18:02 ` Dan Williams
2021-03-26 23:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-03-24 20:07 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-03-24 19:52 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-03-24 20:31 ` Dave Jiang
2021-03-24 23:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-03-25 6:52 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-03-25 11:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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=20210325164809.GB2356281@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox