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 gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC8ABC433EF for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC87210E462; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566EF10E3AF; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8AE3200913; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Jun 2022 10:16:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cerno.tech; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1654265769; x= 1654352169; bh=fk3KX5eSyLHN90n0U5LITdHGtIoEddiGyI/EAYeYiBU=; b=G Y9BwdDOeLIcpH2chXWkgAUEKKo1tZ13DzfKkoJv9KQ+BGpE3U4V1LdKo+bbCRdFy ApSud+sXjgDyje8bHqlEy/bO582UkIvySO/g5BkaNlJqvlmspV1EMLnw/KFAXRS7 v3dlZW8ScytrPJzDHAIx6tjzMA8SxvqWa/HP/V6bGz1i54L58ifSautV/AlkN5C9 EKhW3Y8jq4jbbNeYHetQuw//PlnRMY1wnSKJ8UcPI2Cjlo74Z0CZ2b2OuT/RoO8X nXCxuAPbXq+LFW0LtugExbXDCrv4FV6VlwYdJRuvcCoU1UmWI4x/kycdnroJFBTd rIXfQzYdU626Bl5b6RN4g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1654265769; x= 1654352169; bh=fk3KX5eSyLHN90n0U5LITdHGtIoEddiGyI/EAYeYiBU=; b=j dH41LTNHJ5KwV22Kwf+k1jUA/bAMwYnctp+JuaJ3VcnAUQIT0G8cYeD+MIk9zEm/ +raGeo7KA7rpBuG+fU886W1leyQm+xkvYFCcsfwBSzmbBk5dGm6eqar3n3/R7ANC GLNpm4IvFK/Bh0z7S3gQiZvG7pTjaR5F+1sIxIZtYsbzyZS3Poe65EWD7OVvy19u PGyTbKTpeQ7xvCTya2bRnMiYTLC6BPJL7VR/shJzOqFSlJ6JjgkWOcvl/hPBp0Mv PERo+q/bDe/vF70CIOXwpnKyye+WYsFxcXQMqBcAY0UplUDYonmCm5UU4fgC2W3u YDceXm35zxpMk4eiTVGbg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrleeigdejvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtugfgjgesthhqredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrgihi mhgvucftihhprghrugcuoehmrgigihhmvgestggvrhhnohdrthgvtghhqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeetgfelgefggeekkefggfeludeiudffjeffgeevveekjedukedtudeuteef teefgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hmrgigihhmvgestggvrhhnohdrthgvtghh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8771445c:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:16:06 +0200 From: Maxime Ripard To: Doug Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] drm/bridge: Add devm_drm_bridge_add() Message-ID: <20220603141606.vapkfwfj7ixefmev@penduick> References: <20220510192944.2408515-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20220510122726.v3.3.Iba4b9bf6c7a1ee5ea2835ad7bd5eaf84d7688520@changeid> <20220521091751.opeiqbmc5c2okdq6@houat> <20220603082139.sfdxb5ndwpvlhklh@penduick> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sankeerth Billakanti , Philip Chen , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , linux-arm-msm , Abhinav Kumar , dri-devel , Stephen Boyd , Robert Foss , Hsin-Yi Wang , Dmitry Baryshkov , freedreno , LKML Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 06:52:05AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:19 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 11:21, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:06:34PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 2:17 AM Maxime Ripard = wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:29:43PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrot= e: > > > > > > > This adds a devm managed version of drm_bridge_add(). Like ot= her > > > > > > > "devm" function listed in drm_bridge.h, this function takes an > > > > > > > explicit "dev" to use for the lifetime management. A few note= s: > > > > > > > * In general we have a "struct device" for bridges that makes= a good > > > > > > > candidate for where the lifetime matches exactly what we wa= nt. > > > > > > > * The "bridge->dev->dev" device appears to be the encoder > > > > > > > device. That's not the right device to use for lifetime man= agement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > > > > > > > If we are to introduce more managed helpers, I think it'd be wi= ser to > > > > > > introduce them as DRM-managed, and not device managed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, you'll end up in a weird state when a device has bee= n removed > > > > > > but the DRM device is still around. > > > > > > > > > > I'm kinda confused. In this case there is no DRM device for the b= ridge > > > > > and, as per my CL description, "bridge-dev->dev" appears to be the > > > > > encoder device. I wasn't personally involved in discussions about= it, > > > > > but I was under the impression that this was expected / normal. T= hus > > > > > we can't make this DRM-managed. > > > > > > > > Since I didn't hear a reply, > > > > > > Gah, I replied but it looks like somehow it never reached the ML... > > > > > > Here was my original reply: > > > > > > > > > This adds a devm managed version of drm_bridge_add(). Like other > > > > > > "devm" function listed in drm_bridge.h, this function takes an > > > > > > explicit "dev" to use for the lifetime management. A few notes: > > > > > > * In general we have a "struct device" for bridges that makes a= good > > > > > > candidate for where the lifetime matches exactly what we want. > > > > > > * The "bridge->dev->dev" device appears to be the encoder > > > > > > device. That's not the right device to use for lifetime manag= ement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > > > > > If we are to introduce more managed helpers, I think it'd be wise= r to > > > > > introduce them as DRM-managed, and not device managed. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, you'll end up in a weird state when a device has been = removed > > > > > but the DRM device is still around. > > > >=3D20 > > > > I'm kinda confused. In this case there is no DRM device for the bri= dge > > > > and, as per my CL description, "bridge-dev->dev" appears to be the > > > > encoder device. > > > > > > bridge->dev seems right though? > > > > > > > I wasn't personally involved in discussions about it, but I was und= er > > > > the impression that this was expected / normal. Thus we can't make > > > > this DRM-managed. > > > > > > Still, I don't think devm is the right solution to this either. > > > > > > The underlying issue is two-fold: > > > > > > - Encoders can have a pointer to a bridge through of_drm_find_bridge > > > or similar. However, bridges are traditionally tied to their devi= ce > > > lifetime (by calling drm_bridge_add in probe, and drm_bridge_remo= ve > > > in remove). Encoders will typically be tied to the DRM device > > > however, and that one sticks around until the last application > > > closes it. We can thus very easily end up with a dangling pointer, > > > and a use-after-free. > > > > > > - It's not the case yet, but it doesn't seem far fetch to expose > > > properties of bridges to the userspace. In that case, the userspa= ce > > > would be likely to still hold references to objects that aren't > > > there anymore when the bridge is gone. > > > > > > The first is obviously a larger concern, but if we can find a solution > > > that would accomodate the second it would be great. > > > > > > As far as I can see, we should fix in two steps: > > > > > > - in drm_bridge_attach, we should add a device-managed call that wi= ll > > > unregister the main DRM device. We don't allow to probe the main = DRM > > > device when the bridge isn't there yet in most case, so it makes > > > sense to remove it once the bridge is no longer there as well. > > > > The problem is that I do not see a good way to unregister the main DRM > > device outside of it's driver code. > > > > > > > > - When the DRM device is removed, have the core cleanup any bridge > > > registered. That will remove the need to have drm_bridge_remove in > > > the first place. > > > > > > > I'll assume that my response addressed your concerns. Assuming I get > > > > reviews for the other two patches in this series I'll plan to land > > > > this with Dmitry's review. > > > > > > I still don't think it's a good idea to merge it. It gives an illusion > > > of being safe, but it's really far from it. > > > > It is more of removing the boilerplate code spread over all the > > drivers rather than about particular safety. > > > > I'd propose to land devm_drm_bridge_add (and deprecate calling > > drm_bridge_remove from the bridge driver at some point) and work on > > the whole drm_device <-> drm_bridge problem in the meantime. >=20 > At this point it has been landed in drm-misc-next as per my response > to the cover letter. If need be we can revert it and rework the ps8640 > driver to stop using it but it wouldn't change the lifetime of the > bridge. I'm not going to rework the bridge lifetime rules here. If > nothing else it seems like having the devm function at least would > make it obvious which drivers need to be fixed whenever the bridge > lifetime problem gets solved. Not really, no. The issue exists whether or not the driver would be using devm. Anyway, what's done is done. Could you please ping earlier than a few minutes before applying the patch next time though? We could have easily prevented that situation. Maxime 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 12988C43334 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245051AbiFCOQX (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52492 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240024AbiFCOQW (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:22 -0400 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 092A142A1C; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8AE3200913; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Jun 2022 10:16:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cerno.tech; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1654265769; x= 1654352169; bh=fk3KX5eSyLHN90n0U5LITdHGtIoEddiGyI/EAYeYiBU=; b=G Y9BwdDOeLIcpH2chXWkgAUEKKo1tZ13DzfKkoJv9KQ+BGpE3U4V1LdKo+bbCRdFy ApSud+sXjgDyje8bHqlEy/bO582UkIvySO/g5BkaNlJqvlmspV1EMLnw/KFAXRS7 v3dlZW8ScytrPJzDHAIx6tjzMA8SxvqWa/HP/V6bGz1i54L58ifSautV/AlkN5C9 EKhW3Y8jq4jbbNeYHetQuw//PlnRMY1wnSKJ8UcPI2Cjlo74Z0CZ2b2OuT/RoO8X nXCxuAPbXq+LFW0LtugExbXDCrv4FV6VlwYdJRuvcCoU1UmWI4x/kycdnroJFBTd rIXfQzYdU626Bl5b6RN4g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1654265769; x= 1654352169; bh=fk3KX5eSyLHN90n0U5LITdHGtIoEddiGyI/EAYeYiBU=; b=j dH41LTNHJ5KwV22Kwf+k1jUA/bAMwYnctp+JuaJ3VcnAUQIT0G8cYeD+MIk9zEm/ +raGeo7KA7rpBuG+fU886W1leyQm+xkvYFCcsfwBSzmbBk5dGm6eqar3n3/R7ANC GLNpm4IvFK/Bh0z7S3gQiZvG7pTjaR5F+1sIxIZtYsbzyZS3Poe65EWD7OVvy19u PGyTbKTpeQ7xvCTya2bRnMiYTLC6BPJL7VR/shJzOqFSlJ6JjgkWOcvl/hPBp0Mv PERo+q/bDe/vF70CIOXwpnKyye+WYsFxcXQMqBcAY0UplUDYonmCm5UU4fgC2W3u YDceXm35zxpMk4eiTVGbg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrleeigdejvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtugfgjgesthhqredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrgihi mhgvucftihhprghrugcuoehmrgigihhmvgestggvrhhnohdrthgvtghhqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeetgfelgefggeekkefggfeludeiudffjeffgeevveekjedukedtudeuteef teefgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hmrgigihhmvgestggvrhhnohdrthgvtghh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8771445c:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:16:06 +0200 From: Maxime Ripard To: Doug Anderson Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov , dri-devel , Hsin-Yi Wang , Abhinav Kumar , Philip Chen , Sankeerth Billakanti , Robert Foss , freedreno , linux-arm-msm , Stephen Boyd , Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , Maarten Lankhorst , Thomas Zimmermann , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] drm/bridge: Add devm_drm_bridge_add() Message-ID: <20220603141606.vapkfwfj7ixefmev@penduick> References: <20220510192944.2408515-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20220510122726.v3.3.Iba4b9bf6c7a1ee5ea2835ad7bd5eaf84d7688520@changeid> <20220521091751.opeiqbmc5c2okdq6@houat> <20220603082139.sfdxb5ndwpvlhklh@penduick> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 06:52:05AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:19 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 11:21, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:06:34PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 2:17 AM Maxime Ripard = wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:29:43PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrot= e: > > > > > > > This adds a devm managed version of drm_bridge_add(). Like ot= her > > > > > > > "devm" function listed in drm_bridge.h, this function takes an > > > > > > > explicit "dev" to use for the lifetime management. A few note= s: > > > > > > > * In general we have a "struct device" for bridges that makes= a good > > > > > > > candidate for where the lifetime matches exactly what we wa= nt. > > > > > > > * The "bridge->dev->dev" device appears to be the encoder > > > > > > > device. That's not the right device to use for lifetime man= agement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > > > > > > > If we are to introduce more managed helpers, I think it'd be wi= ser to > > > > > > introduce them as DRM-managed, and not device managed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, you'll end up in a weird state when a device has bee= n removed > > > > > > but the DRM device is still around. > > > > > > > > > > I'm kinda confused. In this case there is no DRM device for the b= ridge > > > > > and, as per my CL description, "bridge-dev->dev" appears to be the > > > > > encoder device. I wasn't personally involved in discussions about= it, > > > > > but I was under the impression that this was expected / normal. T= hus > > > > > we can't make this DRM-managed. > > > > > > > > Since I didn't hear a reply, > > > > > > Gah, I replied but it looks like somehow it never reached the ML... > > > > > > Here was my original reply: > > > > > > > > > This adds a devm managed version of drm_bridge_add(). Like other > > > > > > "devm" function listed in drm_bridge.h, this function takes an > > > > > > explicit "dev" to use for the lifetime management. A few notes: > > > > > > * In general we have a "struct device" for bridges that makes a= good > > > > > > candidate for where the lifetime matches exactly what we want. > > > > > > * The "bridge->dev->dev" device appears to be the encoder > > > > > > device. That's not the right device to use for lifetime manag= ement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > > > > > If we are to introduce more managed helpers, I think it'd be wise= r to > > > > > introduce them as DRM-managed, and not device managed. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, you'll end up in a weird state when a device has been = removed > > > > > but the DRM device is still around. > > > >=3D20 > > > > I'm kinda confused. In this case there is no DRM device for the bri= dge > > > > and, as per my CL description, "bridge-dev->dev" appears to be the > > > > encoder device. > > > > > > bridge->dev seems right though? > > > > > > > I wasn't personally involved in discussions about it, but I was und= er > > > > the impression that this was expected / normal. Thus we can't make > > > > this DRM-managed. > > > > > > Still, I don't think devm is the right solution to this either. > > > > > > The underlying issue is two-fold: > > > > > > - Encoders can have a pointer to a bridge through of_drm_find_bridge > > > or similar. However, bridges are traditionally tied to their devi= ce > > > lifetime (by calling drm_bridge_add in probe, and drm_bridge_remo= ve > > > in remove). Encoders will typically be tied to the DRM device > > > however, and that one sticks around until the last application > > > closes it. We can thus very easily end up with a dangling pointer, > > > and a use-after-free. > > > > > > - It's not the case yet, but it doesn't seem far fetch to expose > > > properties of bridges to the userspace. In that case, the userspa= ce > > > would be likely to still hold references to objects that aren't > > > there anymore when the bridge is gone. > > > > > > The first is obviously a larger concern, but if we can find a solution > > > that would accomodate the second it would be great. > > > > > > As far as I can see, we should fix in two steps: > > > > > > - in drm_bridge_attach, we should add a device-managed call that wi= ll > > > unregister the main DRM device. We don't allow to probe the main = DRM > > > device when the bridge isn't there yet in most case, so it makes > > > sense to remove it once the bridge is no longer there as well. > > > > The problem is that I do not see a good way to unregister the main DRM > > device outside of it's driver code. > > > > > > > > - When the DRM device is removed, have the core cleanup any bridge > > > registered. That will remove the need to have drm_bridge_remove in > > > the first place. > > > > > > > I'll assume that my response addressed your concerns. Assuming I get > > > > reviews for the other two patches in this series I'll plan to land > > > > this with Dmitry's review. > > > > > > I still don't think it's a good idea to merge it. It gives an illusion > > > of being safe, but it's really far from it. > > > > It is more of removing the boilerplate code spread over all the > > drivers rather than about particular safety. > > > > I'd propose to land devm_drm_bridge_add (and deprecate calling > > drm_bridge_remove from the bridge driver at some point) and work on > > the whole drm_device <-> drm_bridge problem in the meantime. >=20 > At this point it has been landed in drm-misc-next as per my response > to the cover letter. If need be we can revert it and rework the ps8640 > driver to stop using it but it wouldn't change the lifetime of the > bridge. I'm not going to rework the bridge lifetime rules here. If > nothing else it seems like having the devm function at least would > make it obvious which drivers need to be fixed whenever the bridge > lifetime problem gets solved. Not really, no. The issue exists whether or not the driver would be using devm. Anyway, what's done is done. Could you please ping earlier than a few minutes before applying the patch next time though? We could have easily prevented that situation. Maxime