From: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: lenb@kernel.org, shaohua.li@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ACPI: dock: convert sysfs attributes to an attribute_group
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:21:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091019172138.GB23948@ldl.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091018071630.GC3935@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Hi Dmitry,
* Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:14:59PM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > As suggested by Dmitry Torokhov, convert the individual sysfs
> > attributes into an attribute group.
> >
> > This change eliminates quite a bit of copy/paste code in the
> > error handling paths.
> >
>
> Looks much better, one more suggestion though:
>
> > +err_unregister:
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s encountered error %d\n", __func__, ret);
>
> If you want to print error this it should probably go down, right before
> "return ret".
This is true for this patch, 1/6... but by the end of the series,
the problem has resolved itself.
I agree that it's sloppy to have this bit of inconsistency in the
middle of the patch series, but I'm reluctant to spin the entire
series again, for sake of a printk.
> > + sysfs_remove_group(&dock_device->dev.kobj, &dock_attribute_group);
>
> It begs another label right here. There are cases when yo0u already
> registered the platform device but haven't added the sysfs group, right?
This isn't quite true. In this patch, 1/6, our sequence goes:
platform_device_register_simple()
platform_device_add_data()
/* twiddle some state in the platform device, no error paths though */
sysfs_create_group()
Arguably, the platform_device_add_data() call could fail with
-ENOMEM, but the code today doesn't deal with that error
condition, and I didn't touch the platform_device_add_data()
line.
So really, there are no other exit paths between registering the
platform device and adding the sysfs group.
By the end of the patch series, I combine the _register_simple()
call with the _add_data() call and the final sequence looks like
this:
if (platform_device_register_data() == error)
return error;
/* twiddle local state in platform device */
if (sysfs_create_group())
goto err_unregister;
/* other stuff */
err_unregister:
printk(KERN_ERR "%s encountered error %d\n", __func__, ret);
sysfs_remove_group(&dd->dev.kobj, &dock_attribute_group);
platform_device_unregister(dd);
return ret;
Checking other callsites of sysfs_remove_group(), it seems to be
valid to call that API even if the creation step failed.
Basically, I don't see the necessity of adding another label.
Below is the final end state of dock_add(). Hopefully the code is
a lot clearer than before. If there are still semantic issues,
please let me know and I'll happily respin.
Thanks.
/ac
static int dock_add(acpi_handle handle)
{
int ret, id;
struct dock_station ds, *dock_station;
struct platform_device *dd;
id = dock_station_count;
dd = platform_device_register_data(NULL, "dock", id, &ds, sizeof(ds));
if (IS_ERR(dd))
return PTR_ERR(dd);
dock_station = dd->dev.platform_data;
dock_station->handle = handle;
dock_station->dock_device = dd;
dock_station->last_dock_time = jiffies - HZ;
mutex_init(&dock_station->hp_lock);
spin_lock_init(&dock_station->dd_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dock_station->sibling);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dock_station->hotplug_devices);
ATOMIC_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(&dock_notifier_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dock_station->dependent_devices);
/* we want the dock device to send uevents */
dev_set_uevent_suppress(&dd->dev, 0);
if (is_dock(handle))
dock_station->flags |= DOCK_IS_DOCK;
if (is_ata(handle))
dock_station->flags |= DOCK_IS_ATA;
if (is_battery(handle))
dock_station->flags |= DOCK_IS_BAT;
ret = sysfs_create_group(&dd->dev.kobj, &dock_attribute_group);
if (ret)
goto err_unregister;
/* Find dependent devices */
acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
find_dock_devices, dock_station, NULL);
/* add the dock station as a device dependent on itself */
ret = add_dock_dependent_device(dock_station, handle);
if (ret)
goto err_unregister;
dock_station_count++;
list_add(&dock_station->sibling, &dock_stations);
return 0;
err_unregister:
printk(KERN_ERR "%s encountered error %d\n", __func__, ret);
sysfs_remove_group(&dd->dev.kobj, &dock_attribute_group);
platform_device_unregister(dd);
return ret;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-19 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-16 21:14 [PATCH v3 0/6] ACPI: dock: code hygiene Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:14 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] ACPI: dock: convert sysfs attributes to an attribute_group Alex Chiang
2009-10-18 7:16 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2009-10-19 17:21 ` Alex Chiang [this message]
2009-10-19 17:56 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2009-10-19 19:36 ` Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] ACPI: dock: combine add|alloc_dock_dependent_device Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] ACPI: dock: remove global 'dock_device_name' Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] ACPI: dock: dock_add - hoist up platform_device_register_simple() Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] ACPI: dock: add struct dock_station * directly to platform device data Alex Chiang
2009-10-16 21:15 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] ACPI: dock: minor whitespace and style cleanups Alex Chiang
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=20091019172138.GB23948@ldl.fc.hp.com \
--to=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/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