From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A73C4332F for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230284AbiDEHWs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 03:22:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39772 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232144AbiDEHVc (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2022 03:21:32 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DCD115A2A for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 00:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id t2so9723551qtw.9 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:18:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tH5y1LP3eo6EuS4TdiUUXJPk8S4V/nCHB9ptl16xjQk=; b=SOGxa1FOQ2cYLonNYxGKqYc8Cmhza2hDARSnb9mGbeNm/I2MarVZtDGeyxL2yV4ADW CE2Pg8lUKuzMPcXYd+l07Mb+lHySwcXsBz0XAG9BdkpAqQ8QV6Y/ZQZZATUojeVtiLLc VUV00J9kn1R9g4Tng2Z5dR1sUaxUeGIPhn1qG1Y0KGO2OLwFa8OcQkgQq7XNTkonCUhz PatfjKJHzUUawIdXl1v4909I3F/rAeTuScZSuuLSBBrQHVNOPdq6fc3fXrAkqGp65UEZ L8CTgFZdfjOnDDNY4/5m9UamV3xhJ0yrqtuwqAmYKlwYNPXwZzK2qVQIsGE/ijRsWfNP PGeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tH5y1LP3eo6EuS4TdiUUXJPk8S4V/nCHB9ptl16xjQk=; b=ZF3KZxAlTlOIQ3kxDpkfGUdgFgQfZ7nVR0re0XJKdSciUPnRhN2gQWjcdDhLN8K/IQ PXfxvWjxxc6eDZavYNmSrLr2X/c02t2+bcKXIUG0xs3rCDel11HSdc8TR/GCYdzwo4Dq gMyxcF9MeMhOY2TXf+5JHgyAyZjyHpJZw2ec0Imgv+3rZfJRehwpnXVK8jJHlKSZandt aofOaVHn6Ng0IbCCbI3jTzCdhPmz8sDKUcTHHJtyI7h++CXB1fBb+6qV94ZY6mqdcmOu mrLmCCYJnMoG+wuETcoJUuyxmNv80D8Upql2Pt6O8db7lizUKKHbiyyCe01XyARygLZ9 29QQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338TQm70h5mIs27oYydp7JmfqAngfVTxmOn/yE0s+S9OaONDvaS PatDY05cM4ENcvJSlWC/l7L65WNml823q1XZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz5xf+QOeCZLaHMEz/D+uXDqHnb+rduY09A27ff8/FpLS2BqFBXMNBGXOXUJ4vLrbu5LoSVaw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:178a:b0:2e1:e7b8:e52e with SMTP id s10-20020a05622a178a00b002e1e7b8e52emr1798610qtk.464.1649143120646; Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2003:f6:ef00:8400:3d36:58a:667a:1da9? (p200300f6ef0084003d36058a667a1da9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:f6:ef00:8400:3d36:58a:667a:1da9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r64-20020a37a843000000b0067b0cf40b18sm7868869qke.69.2022.04.05.00.18.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9bde64d0c05a37e72fabbeb39d8d2fe099526917.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: do not break notify on NOTIFY_OK From: Nuno =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= To: Frank Rowand , Nuno =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring , Pantelis Antoniou Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:19:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <01e77fbd-5c26-6b15-be1f-f962aa4190c6@gmail.com> References: <20220404074055.95618-1-nuno.sa@analog.com> <01e77fbd-5c26-6b15-be1f-f962aa4190c6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 13:10 -0500, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 4/4/22 02:40, Nuno Sá wrote: > > We should not break overlay notifications on NOTIFY_OK otherwise we > > might > > break on the first fragment. As NOTIFY_OK is not zero, we need to > > account for that when looking for errors. > > It's been a long time since I've looked at notifiers, it will take me > some time to > review this. > > -Frank > > > Yeah, it was also my first time looking at of dynamic code. But it just didn't felt right to stop fragmment notifications if someone returns NOTIFY_OK. In fact, I'm starting to think that even if someone wants to NOTIFY_STOP on the current fragment, that should not mean we should not send notifications for the remaining ones. So, maybe the right patch is actually something like: ret = blocking_notifier_call_chain() if (notifier_to_errno(ret)) return notifier_to_errno(ret); This would also be more in line (not totally identical) with '__of_changeset_revert_notify()'. - Nuno Sá > >