From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> To: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: set mtd partition panic write flag Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:03:44 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191105200344.1e8c3eab@xps13> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20191021193343.41320-1-kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> Hi Kamal, Richard, something to look into below :) Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:32:52 -0400: > Check mtd panic write flag and set the mtd partition panic > write flag so that low level drivers can use it to take > required action to ensure oops data gets written to assigned > mtd partition. I feel there is something wrong with the current implementation regarding partitions but I am not sure this is the right fix. Is this something you detected with some kind of static checker or did you actually experience an issue? In the commit log you say "check mtd (I suppose you mean the master) panic write flag and set the mtd partition panic write flag" which makes sense, but in reality my understanding is that you do the opposite: you check mtd->oops_panic_write which is the partitions' structure, and set part->parent->oops_panic_write which is the master's flag. Also, I am not sure if it is worth checking anything, why not just set mtd->oops_panic_write in this function? Same comment for the -already existing- condition in mtd_panic_write. As soon as we are in these functions, we know there is a panic, right? So why checking if the bit is already set before forcing it? > > Fixes: 9f897bfdd8 ("mtd: Add flag to indicate panic_write") > Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > index 7328c066c5ba..b4f6479abeda 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > @@ -159,6 +159,10 @@ static int part_panic_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > size_t *retlen, const u_char *buf) > { > struct mtd_part *part = mtd_to_part(mtd); > + > + if (mtd->oops_panic_write) > + part->parent->oops_panic_write = true; > + > return part->parent->_panic_write(part->parent, to + part->offset, len, > retlen, buf); > } Thanks, Miquèl
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> To: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: set mtd partition panic write flag Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:03:44 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191105200344.1e8c3eab@xps13> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20191021193343.41320-1-kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> Hi Kamal, Richard, something to look into below :) Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:32:52 -0400: > Check mtd panic write flag and set the mtd partition panic > write flag so that low level drivers can use it to take > required action to ensure oops data gets written to assigned > mtd partition. I feel there is something wrong with the current implementation regarding partitions but I am not sure this is the right fix. Is this something you detected with some kind of static checker or did you actually experience an issue? In the commit log you say "check mtd (I suppose you mean the master) panic write flag and set the mtd partition panic write flag" which makes sense, but in reality my understanding is that you do the opposite: you check mtd->oops_panic_write which is the partitions' structure, and set part->parent->oops_panic_write which is the master's flag. Also, I am not sure if it is worth checking anything, why not just set mtd->oops_panic_write in this function? Same comment for the -already existing- condition in mtd_panic_write. As soon as we are in these functions, we know there is a panic, right? So why checking if the bit is already set before forcing it? > > Fixes: 9f897bfdd8 ("mtd: Add flag to indicate panic_write") > Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > index 7328c066c5ba..b4f6479abeda 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > @@ -159,6 +159,10 @@ static int part_panic_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > size_t *retlen, const u_char *buf) > { > struct mtd_part *part = mtd_to_part(mtd); > + > + if (mtd->oops_panic_write) > + part->parent->oops_panic_write = true; > + > return part->parent->_panic_write(part->parent, to + part->offset, len, > retlen, buf); > } Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-05 19:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-10-21 19:32 [PATCH] mtd: set mtd partition panic write flag Kamal Dasu 2019-10-21 19:32 ` Kamal Dasu 2019-11-05 19:03 ` Miquel Raynal [this message] 2019-11-05 19:03 ` Miquel Raynal 2019-11-05 23:03 ` Richard Weinberger 2019-11-05 23:03 ` Richard Weinberger 2019-11-11 20:35 ` Kamal Dasu 2019-11-11 20:35 ` Kamal Dasu 2020-01-09 15:03 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-01-09 15:03 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-01-09 15:25 ` Kamal Dasu 2020-01-09 15:25 ` Kamal Dasu 2020-01-09 17:28 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-01-09 17:28 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-05-02 18:08 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-05-02 18:08 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-05-04 15:20 ` Kamal Dasu 2020-05-04 15:20 ` Kamal Dasu 2020-05-04 17:29 ` Miquel Raynal 2020-05-04 17:29 ` Miquel Raynal
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20191105200344.1e8c3eab@xps13 \ --to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \ --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \ --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \ --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \ --cc=kdasu.kdev@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \ --cc=richard@nod.at \ --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.