From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] bus: brcmstb_gisb: add notifier handling Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:17:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20170329181714.GD26135@leverpostej> References: <20170328213431.10904-1-opendmb@gmail.com> <20170328213431.10904-8-opendmb@gmail.com> <20170329101357.GB23442@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Berger Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, computersforpeace@gmail.com, gregory.0xf0@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, james.morse@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, treding@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, olof@lixom.net, mirza.krak@gmail.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:39:11AM -0700, Doug Berger wrote: > On 03/29/2017 03:13 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> +static int dump_gisb_error(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long v, > >> + void *p) > >> + return 0; > > > > I think this should be NOTIFY_OK. > > > I used dump_mem_limit() as a template and didn't catch this (work to > do...). Upon review I think I would prefer NOTIFY_DONE since this call > is opportunistic (i.e. it is taking the opportunity to check whether > additional diagnostic data is available to display) and has no interest > in affecting the overall handling of the event. That's fine by me. Does the distinction matter here? Most notifer users treat NOTIFY_OK and NOTIFY_DONE as equivalent, and notifier_call_chain only terminates when it sees NOTIFY_STOP_MASK. [...] > >> + if (list_is_singular(&brcmstb_gisb_arb_device_list)) { > >> + register_die_notifier(&gisb_error_notifier); > >> + atomic_notifier_chain_register(&panic_notifier_list, > >> + &gisb_error_notifier); > > > > I don't think this is quite right. A notifier_block can only be > > registered to one notifier chain at a time, and this has the potential > > to corrupt both chains. > > > A VERY good point thanks for pointing this out. > > > I also think you only need to register the panic notifier. An SError > > should always result in a panic. > > > That was my initial thought as well. However, testing revealed that the > bad mode Oops actually exits the user space process and doesn't reach > the panic so there was no helpful diagnostic message. This may be in > line with your comments about insufficient fatality of failures in PATCH > v2 6/8, but it actually is more in line with our desired behavior for > the aborted write. Setting the notify on die gave us the result we are > looking for, but as noted above I should have created a separate notifier. > > I had hoped that the same approach (i.e. die notifier) would remove the > need for PATCH v2 6/8 as well, but I found that the Unhandled fault > error didn't actually die from user mode. In my mind it's a bug that we don't treat those errors more fatally. I'll try to dig into that. Thanks, Mark.