Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] driver core: Make parameter check consistent for API cluster device_(for_each|find)_child()

Ira Weiny
2024-08-23T17:19:40Z

Zijun Hu wrote:
> On 2024/8/20 22:14, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Zijun Hu wrote:
> >> On 2024/8/20 20:53, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >>> Zijun Hu wrote:
> >>>> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> The following API cluster takes the same type parameter list, but do not
> >>>> have consistent parameter check as shown below.
> >>>>
> >>>> device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, ...) // check (!parent->p)
> >>>> device_for_each_child_reverse(struct device *parent, ...) // same as above
> >>>> device_find_child(struct device *parent, ...) // check (!parent)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Seems reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> What about device_find_child_by_name()?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Plan to simplify this API implementation by * atomic * API
> >> device_find_child() as following:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240811-simply_api_dfcbn-v2-1-d0398acdc366@quicinc.com
> >> struct device *device_find_child_by_name(struct device *parent,
> >> const char *name)
> >> {
> >> return device_find_child(parent, name, device_match_name);
> >> }
> >
> > Ok. Thanks.
> >
> >>
> >>>> Fixed by using consistent check (!parent || !parent->p) for the cluster.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/base/core.c | 6 +++---
> >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> >>>> index 1688e76cb64b..b1dd8c5590dc 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> >>>> @@ -4004,7 +4004,7 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, void *data,
> >>>> struct device *child;
> >>>> int error = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (!parent->p)
> >>>> + if (!parent || !parent->p)
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> klist_iter_init(&parent->p->klist_children, &i);
> >>>> @@ -4034,7 +4034,7 @@ int device_for_each_child_reverse(struct device *parent, void *data,
> >>>> struct device *child;
> >>>> int error = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (!parent->p)
> >>>> + if (!parent || !parent->p)
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> klist_iter_init(&parent->p->klist_children, &i);
> >>>> @@ -4068,7 +4068,7 @@ struct device *device_find_child(struct device *parent, void *data,
> >>>> struct klist_iter i;
> >>>> struct device *child;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (!parent)
> >>>> + if (!parent || !parent->p)
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps this was just a typo which should have been.
> >>>
> >>> if (!parent->p)
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >> maybe, but the following device_find_child_by_name() also use (!parent).
> >>
> >>> I think there is an expectation that none of these are called with a NULL
> >>> parent.
> >>>
> >>
> >> this patch aim is to make these atomic APIs have consistent checks as
> >> far as possible, that will make other patches within this series more
> >> acceptable.
> >>
> >> i combine two checks to (!parent || !parent->p) since i did not know
> >> which is better.
> >
> > I'm not entirely clear either. But checking the member p makes more sense
> > to me than the parent parameter. I would expect that iterating the
> > children of a device must be done only when the parent device is not NULL.
> >
> > parent->p is more subtle. I'm unclear why the API would need to allow
> > that to run without error.
> >
> i prefer (!parent || !parent->p) with below reasons:
>
> 1)
> original API authors have such concern that either (!parent) or
> (!parent->p) maybe happen since they are checked, all their concerns
> can be covered by (!parent || !parent->p).
>
> 2)
> It is the more robust than either (!parent) or (!parent->p)
>
> 3)
> it also does not have any negative effect.

It adds code and instructions to all paths calling these functions.

What is the reason to allow?

void foo() {
...
device_for_each_child(NULL, ...);
...
}

What are we finding the child of in that case?

Ira

>
> > Ira
>