Re: [PATCH] drm: make drm_get_format_name thread-safe

[Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@imgtec.com>]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:54:01PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch>
> > ---
> >
> > I moved the main bits to be the first diffs, shouldn't affect anything
> > when applying the patch, but I wanted to ask:
> > I don't like the hard-coded `32` the appears in both kmalloc() and
> > snprintf(), what do you think? If you don't like it either, what would
> > you suggest? Should I #define it?
> >
> > Second question is about the patch mail itself: should I send this kind
> > of patch separated by module, with a note requesting them to be squashed
> > when applying? It has to land as a single patch, but for review it might
> > be easier if people only see the bits they each care about, as well as
> > to collect ack's/r-b's.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Eric
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v10_0.c          |  6 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v11_0.c          |  6 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v8_0.c           |  6 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c                    |  5 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c                      | 21 ++++++++-----
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c                    | 17 ++++++-----
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/hisilicon/kirin/kirin_drm_ade.c |  6 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c             | 11 ++++++-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic_plane.c       |  6 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c            | 39 ++++++++++++++++---------
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atombios_crtc.c          | 12 +++++---
> >  include/drm/drm_fourcc.h                        |  2 +-
> >  12 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
> > index 0645c85..38216a1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
> > @@ -39,16 +39,14 @@ static char printable_char(int c)
> >   * drm_get_format_name - return a string for drm fourcc format
> >   * @format: format to compute name of
> >   *
> > - * Note that the buffer used by this function is globally shared and owned by
> > - * the function itself.
> > - *
> > - * FIXME: This isn't really multithreading safe.
> > + * Note that the buffer returned by this function is owned by the caller
> > + * and will need to be freed.
> >   */
> >  const char *drm_get_format_name(uint32_t format)
> 
> I find it surprising that a function that allocates a buffer returns a
> const pointer. Some userspace libraries have conventions about the
> ownership based on constness.
> 
> (I also find it suprising that kfree() takes a const pointer; arguably
> that call changes the memory.)
> 
> Is there precedent for this?
> 
> BR,
> Jani.

It's not a const pointer, it's a normal pointer to a const char, i.e.
you can do as you want with the pointer but you shouldn't change the
chars it points to.

Cheers,
  Eric