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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6339DC4727E for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 20:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1662420782 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 20:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728345AbgJGU7c (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:59:32 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:64568 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726013AbgJGU7b (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:59:31 -0400 IronPort-SDR: u6ujo6C3eLb9HTZFxVubVhv2IH6VSZTh0SS/zzHP8WdPSAviBAxeWtciFZ8YUanvh3TpKIM7M5 +DQm+5y154pw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9767"; a="182578295" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,348,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="182578295" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Oct 2020 13:59:31 -0700 IronPort-SDR: blahSc5fD490yQjY09s2bxXJZwKaRwtkEPoF7rGqNKXzjTddO0QJ+BQivrdZRqVZFO9bRdIk9N UItRhzMd83BQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,348,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="528161440" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.135.3.161]) ([10.135.3.161]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Oct 2020 13:59:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support To: "Ertman, David M" , Parav Pandit , Leon Romanovsky Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "parav@mellanox.com" , "tiwai@suse.de" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com" , "fred.oh@linux.intel.com" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "dledford@redhat.com" , "broonie@kernel.org" , Jason Gunthorpe , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "Williams, Dan J" , "Saleem, Shiraz" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "Patil, Kiran" References: <20201005182446.977325-1-david.m.ertman@intel.com> <20201005182446.977325-2-david.m.ertman@intel.com> <20201006071821.GI1874917@unreal> <20201006170241.GM1874917@unreal> <20201007192610.GD3964015@unreal> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:59:28 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> Below is most simple, intuitive and matching with core APIs for name and >> design pattern wise. >> init() >> { >> err = ancillary_device_initialize(); >> if (err) >> return ret; >> >> err = ancillary_device_add(); >> if (ret) >> goto err_unwind; >> >> err = some_foo(); >> if (err) >> goto err_foo; >> return 0; >> >> err_foo: >> ancillary_device_del(adev); >> err_unwind: >> ancillary_device_put(adev->dev); >> return err; >> } >> >> cleanup() >> { >> ancillary_device_de(adev); >> ancillary_device_put(adev); >> /* It is common to have a one wrapper for this as >> ancillary_device_unregister(). >> * This will match with core device_unregister() that has precise >> documentation. >> * but given fact that init() code need proper error unwinding, like >> above, >> * it make sense to have two APIs, and no need to export another >> symbol for unregister(). >> * This pattern is very easy to audit and code. >> */ >> } > > I like this flow +1 > > But ... since the init() function is performing both device_init and > device_add - it should probably be called ancillary_device_register, > and we are back to a single exported API for both register and > unregister. Kind reminder that we introduced the two functions to allow the caller to know if it needed to free memory when initialize() fails, and it didn't need to free memory when add() failed since put_device() takes care of it. If you have a single init() function it's impossible to know which behavior to select on error. I also have a case with SoundWire where it's nice to first initialize, then set some data and then add. > > At that point, do we need wrappers on the primitives init, add, del, > and put? > > -DaveE >