From: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
"tiwai@suse.de" <tiwai@suse.de>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
"ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com"
<ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
"fred.oh@linux.intel.com" <fred.oh@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
"dledford@redhat.com" <dledford@redhat.com>,
"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@intel.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:45:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB4322658669FFC396D8EE5D84DC0B0@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201008074525.GJ13580@unreal>
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:15 PM
>
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 07:14:17AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:56 AM
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:56:01AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: Pierre-Louis Bossart
> > > > > <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 3:20 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/7/20 4:22 PM, Ertman, David M wrote:
> > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart
> > > > > >> <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:59 PM
> > > > > >> To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; Parav Pandit
> > > > > >> <parav@nvidia.com>; Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >> <jgg@nvidia.com>; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org;
> > > > > >> kuba@kernel.org; Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@intel.com>;
> > > > > >> Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>;
> > > > > >> davem@davemloft.net; Patil, Kiran <kiran.patil@intel.com>
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> 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.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The flow as outlined by Parav above does an initialize as the
> > > > > > first step, so every error path out of the function has to do
> > > > > > a put_device(), so you would never need to manually free the
> > > > > > memory in
> > > > > the setup function.
> > > > > > It would be freed in the release call.
> > > > >
> > > > > err = ancillary_device_initialize(); if (err)
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > where is the put_device() here? if the release function does any
> > > > > sort of kfree, then you'd need to do it manually in this case.
> > > > Since device_initialize() failed, put_device() cannot be done here.
> > > > So yes, pseudo code should have shown, if (err) {
> > > > kfree(adev);
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > If we just want to follow register(), unregister() pattern,
> > > >
> > > > Than,
> > > >
> > > > ancillar_device_register() should be,
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * ancillar_device_register() - register an ancillary device
> > > > * NOTE: __never directly free @adev after calling this function,
> > > > even if it returned
> > > > * an error. Always use ancillary_device_put() to give up the
> > > > reference
> > > initialized by this function.
> > > > * This note matches with the core and caller knows exactly what
> > > > to be
> > > done.
> > > > */
> > > > ancillary_device_register()
> > > > {
> > > > device_initialize(&adev->dev);
> > > > if (!dev->parent || !adev->name)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > if (!dev->release && !(dev->type && dev->type->release)) {
> > > > /* core is already capable and throws the warning when
> > > release callback is not set.
> > > > * It is done at drivers/base/core.c:1798.
> > > > * For NULL release it says, "does not have a release()
> > > function, it is broken and must be fixed"
> > > > */
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > }
> > > > err = dev_set_name(adev...);
> > > > if (err) {
> > > > /* kobject_release() -> kobject_cleanup() are capable to
> > > detect if name is set/ not set
> > > > * and free the const if it was set.
> > > > */
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > > err = device_add(&adev->dev);
> > > > If (err)
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Caller code:
> > > > init()
> > > > {
> > > > adev = kzalloc(sizeof(*foo_adev)..);
> > > > if (!adev)
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > err = ancillary_device_register(&adev);
> > > > if (err)
> > > > goto err;
> > > >
> > > > err:
> > > > ancillary_device_put(&adev);
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > cleanup()
> > > > {
> > > > ancillary_device_unregister(&adev);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Above pattern is fine too matching the core.
> > > >
> > > > If I understand Leon correctly, he prefers simple register(),
> > > > unregister()
> > > pattern.
> > > > If, so it should be explicit register(), unregister() API.
> > >
> > > This is my summary
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20201008052137.GA13580@unreal
> > > The API should be symmetric.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree to your below point.
> > > 1. You are not providing driver/core API but simplification and
> > > obfuscation of basic primitives and structures. This is new layer.
> > > There is no room for a claim that we must to follow internal API.
> > If ancillary bus has
> > ancillary_device_add(), it cannot do device_initialize() and device_add() in
> both.
> >
> > I provided two examples and what really matters is a given patchset
> > uses (need to use) which pattern,
> > initialize() + add(), or register() + unregister().
> >
> > As we all know that API is not added for future. It is the future patch
> extends it.
> > So lets wait for Pierre to reply if soundwire can follow register(),
> unregister() sequence.
> > This way same APIs can service both use-cases.
> >
> > Regarding,
> > > 3. You can't "ask" from users to call internal calls (put_device)
> > > over internal fields in ancillary_device.
> > In that case if should be ancillary_device_put() ancillary_device_release().
> >
> > Or we should follow the patten of ib_alloc_device [1],
> > ancillary_device_alloc()
> > -> kzalloc(adev + dev) with compile time assert check like rdma and vdpa
> subsystem.
> > ->device_initialize()
> > ancillary_device_add()
> >
> > ancillar_device_de() <- balances with add
> > ancillary_device_dealloc() <-- balances with device_alloc(), which does the
> put_device() + free the memory allocated in alloc().
> >
> > This approach of [1] also eliminates exposing adev.dev.release =
> <drivers_release_method_to_free_adev> in drivers.
> > And container_of() benefit also continues..
> >
> > [1]
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc8/source/include/rdma/ib_verbs
> > .h#L2791
> >
>
> My code looks like this, probably yours looks the same.
>
> 247 priv->adev[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv->adev[i]), GFP_KERNEL);
> 248 if (!priv->adev[i])
> 249 goto init_err;
> 250
> 251 adev = &priv->adev[i]->adev;
> 252 adev->id = idx;
> 253 adev->name = mlx5_adev_devices[i].suffix;
> 254 adev->dev.parent = dev->device;
> 255 adev->dev.release = adev_release;
> 256 priv->adev[i]->mdev = dev;
> 257
> 258 ret = ancillary_device_initialize(adev);
> 259 if (ret)
> 260 goto init_err;
> 261
> 262 ret = ancillary_device_add(adev);
> 263 if (ret) {
> 264 put_device(&adev->dev);
> 265 goto add_err;
> 266 }
Yes, subfunction code is also very similar.
You expressed concerned that you didn't like put_device() at [1].
But in above code is touching adev->dev.{parent, release} is ok?
> 254 adev->dev.parent = dev->device;
> 255 adev->dev.release = adev_release;
If not,
We can make it elegant by doing,
the patten of ib_alloc_device [1],
ancillary_device_alloc()
-> kzalloc(adev + dev) with compile time assert check like rdma and vdpa subsystem.
->device_initialize()
ancillary_device_add()
ancillar_device_de() <- balances with add
ancillary_device_dealloc() <-- balances with device_alloc(), which does the put_device() + free the memory allocated in alloc().
This approach of [2] also eliminates exposing adev.dev.release = <drivers_release_method_to_free_adev> in drivers.
And container_of() benefit also continues..
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20201007192610.GD3964015@unreal/
[2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc8/source/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h#L2791
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-08 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-05 18:24 [PATCH v2 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client support Dave Ertman
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support Dave Ertman
2020-10-06 7:18 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-06 15:18 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-06 17:02 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-06 17:09 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-06 17:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-06 17:41 ` Saleem, Shiraz
2020-10-06 19:20 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-07 2:49 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-07 13:09 ` Saleem, Shiraz
2020-10-07 13:36 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-07 18:55 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-07 20:01 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-06 18:35 ` Ranjani Sridharan
2020-10-06 17:50 ` Saleem, Shiraz
2020-10-07 18:06 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 19:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-07 19:53 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 19:57 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 20:17 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-07 20:46 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 20:59 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-07 21:22 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 21:49 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-08 4:56 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-08 5:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 7:14 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-08 7:45 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 9:45 ` Parav Pandit [this message]
2020-10-08 10:17 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 13:29 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-09 11:40 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 16:54 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 17:35 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-08 18:13 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 5:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 6:32 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-08 7:00 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 7:38 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-08 7:50 ` gregkh
2020-10-08 11:10 ` Parav Pandit
2020-10-08 16:39 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 8:00 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 8:09 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-08 16:42 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 17:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 18:25 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 20:30 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-07 20:18 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-06 17:23 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-06 17:45 ` Saleem, Shiraz
2020-10-08 22:04 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 22:41 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-09 14:26 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-09 19:22 ` Dan Williams
2020-10-09 19:39 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-12 18:34 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-08 17:20 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-08 17:28 ` Ertman, David M
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: SOF: Introduce descriptors for SOF client Dave Ertman
2020-10-13 1:05 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-10-13 1:31 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-13 1:55 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-10-13 1:56 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-10-13 15:08 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-13 19:35 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-10-13 19:57 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] ASoC: SOF: Create client driver for IPC test Dave Ertman
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] ASoC: SOF: ops: Add ops for client registration Dave Ertman
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Define " Dave Ertman
2020-10-05 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] ASoC: SOF: debug: Remove IPC flood test support in SOF core Dave Ertman
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=BY5PR12MB4322658669FFC396D8EE5D84DC0B0@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=parav@nvidia.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david.m.ertman@intel.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=fred.oh@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=kiran.patil@intel.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=parav@mellanox.com \
--cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=shiraz.saleem@intel.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).