From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] remoteproc: use a local copy for the name field
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:43:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200326194304.GB59436@builder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2089a4a8-d5e4-e4f5-e7bc-7d053f654204@ti.com>
On Thu 26 Mar 07:01 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 3/26/20 12:42 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 24 Mar 13:18 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
> >
> >> The current name field used in the remoteproc structure is simply
> >> a pointer to a name field supplied during the rproc_alloc() call.
> >> The pointer passed in by remoteproc drivers during registration is
> >> typically a dev_name pointer, but it is possible that the pointer
> >> will no longer remain valid if the devices themselves were created
> >> at runtime like in the case of of_platform_populate(), and were
> >> deleted upon any failures within the respective remoteproc driver
> >> probe function.
> >>
> >> So, allocate and maintain a local copy for this name field to
> >> keep it agnostic of the logic used in the remoteproc drivers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index aca6d022901a..6e0b91fa6f11 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1989,6 +1989,7 @@ static void rproc_type_release(struct device *dev)
> >>
> >> kfree(rproc->firmware);
> >> kfree(rproc->ops);
> >> + kfree(rproc->name);
> >> kfree(rproc);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -2061,7 +2062,13 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> >> }
> >>
> >> rproc->firmware = p;
> >> - rproc->name = name;
> >> + rproc->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Let's use kstrdup_const() instead here (and kfree_const() instead of
> > kfree()), so that the cases where we are passed a constant we won't
> > create a duplicate on the heap.
> >
> > And the "name" in struct rproc can remain const.
>
> Agreed, that's better functions to use for this.
>
> >
> >> + if (!rproc->name) {
> >> + kfree(p);
> >> + kfree(rproc->ops);
> >> + kfree(rproc);
> >> + return NULL;
> >
> > Perhaps we can rearrange the hunks here slightly and get to a point
> > where we can rely on the release function earlier?
>
> Not sure I understand. I don't see any release function, all failure
> paths in rproc_alloc() directly unwind the previous operations. You mean
> move this to before the alloc for rproc structure, something similar to
> what we are doing with firmware?
>
Look at the failure for ida_simple_get(), there we're past the setup of
rproc->dev.type, so the rproc_type->release function will be invoked as
we call put_device().
So if you move the initialization of rproc->dev up right after the
allocation of rproc we should be able to rely on that to clean up all
these for us.
Regards,
Bjorn
> regards
> Suman
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >> + }
> >> rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
> >> rproc->auto_boot = true;
> >> rproc->elf_class = ELFCLASS32;
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> index ddce7a7775d1..77788a4bb94e 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
> >> struct rproc {
> >> struct list_head node;
> >> struct iommu_domain *domain;
> >> - const char *name;
> >> + char *name;
> >> char *firmware;
> >> void *priv;
> >> struct rproc_ops *ops;
> >> --
> >> 2.23.0
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 20:18 [PATCH 0/7] TI K3 R5F remoteproc support Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 1/7] remoteproc: add prepare and unprepare ops Suman Anna
2020-03-26 19:50 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-06 17:20 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-08 23:39 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 2/7] remoteproc: use a local copy for the name field Suman Anna
2020-03-26 5:42 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-03-26 14:01 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-26 19:43 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2020-03-26 20:35 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for R5F subsystem on TI K3 SoCs Suman Anna
2020-03-26 16:28 ` Rob Herring
2020-03-26 18:09 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-26 16:53 ` Rob Herring
2020-04-09 0:02 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 0:15 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-06 19:59 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 0:12 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 4/7] remoteproc/k3-r5: Add TI-SCI processor control helper functions Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 5/7] remoteproc/k3-r5: Add a remoteproc driver for R5F subsystem Suman Anna
2020-04-07 18:08 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 0:26 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-08 19:38 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-15 22:30 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 21:25 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-15 22:44 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-16 20:11 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 6/7] remoteproc/k3-r5: Initialize TCM memories for ECC Suman Anna
2020-04-09 21:36 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 22:01 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 20:18 ` [PATCH 7/7] remoteproc/k3-r5: Add loading support for on-chip SRAM regions Suman Anna
2020-04-10 20:30 ` Mathieu Poirier
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=20200326194304.GB59436@builder \
--to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lokeshvutla@ti.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=s-anna@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: 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).