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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 683ADC433E0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4565820723 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="tX0SIp0b" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729863AbgEVNXw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 09:23:52 -0400 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:48006 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729399AbgEVNXv (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 09:23:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04MDMLnF129997; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:38 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=gZnfBrzAvRzx8jUFLTXQ8QllxngxYzmzC5MjjDonJe8=; b=tX0SIp0bVzqD3O0hqKK1fsbNI5KXLBSbmIK3CQsCMzIj7t04LDO17Trpko/fAzkFZ11r kEWAvq/E8fQkiW7vuXl+RbTkRpMJXyauafF0xW6AUTp0kG8uV1rg40/BvUsHc9InYWpD BLkbCPMrXketqBlyfRMexfCSVdVkeBpBxuzVNiQ5Ero86RtvT4mOyx+jwW9+28JrrFfA IfyOd0YDmTeFlJBR7uZY5kancMr02DMQyx//VZatXlSLvrEPVlQEa8mC3laP/zGIdFMx Pz9rIQLJQRhgRyGC8XbqWTlhvcXUb3F6wbOya9sMZ1kWJm7fYr9fvEtwiJ5Pe9xYN+dw Zw== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 31284mdq3s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:38 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04MDIaNo006519; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:37 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 314gmb52d4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:37 +0000 Received: from abhmp0017.oracle.com (abhmp0017.oracle.com [141.146.116.23]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 04MDNS3x025160; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:23:28 GMT Received: from kadam (/41.57.98.10) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:23:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:23:18 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Thierry Reding Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Len Brown , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux PM , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jonathan Hunter , linux-tegra , dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn, Kangjie Lu , Dmitry Osipenko , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] media: staging: tegra-vde: fix runtime pm imbalance on error Message-ID: <20200522132318.GM30374@kadam> References: <20200520095148.10995-1-dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn> <2b5d64f5-825f-c081-5d03-02655c2d9491@gmail.com> <20200520150230.GC30374@kadam> <2a46539d.b977f.1723553aa81.Coremail.dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn> <20200521091505.GF30374@kadam> <20200521173901.GA22310@kadam> <20200522131031.GL2163848@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200522131031.GL2163848@ulmo> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9628 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=21 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005220109 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9628 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=21 mlxscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005220109 Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:10:31PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:39:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:42:55AM +0800, dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn wrote: > > > > > Hi, Dan, > > > > > > > > > > I agree the best solution is to fix __pm_runtime_resume(). But there are also > > > > > many cases that assume pm_runtime_get_sync() will change PM usage > > > > > counter on error. According to my static analysis results, the number of these > > > > > "right" cases are larger. Adjusting __pm_runtime_resume() directly will introduce > > > > > more new bugs. Therefore I think we should resolve the "bug" cases individually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was saying that we may need to introduce a new replacement > > > > function for pm_runtime_get_sync() that works as expected. > > > > > > > > There is no reason why we have to live with the old behavior. > > > > > > What exactly do you mean by "the old behavior"? > > > > I'm suggesting we leave pm_runtime_get_sync() alone but we add a new > > function which called pm_runtime_get_sync_resume() which does something > > like this: > > > > static inline int pm_runtime_get_sync_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > int ret; > > > > ret = __pm_runtime_resume(dev, RPM_GET_PUT); > > if (ret < 0) { > > pm_runtime_put(dev); > > return ret; > > } > > return 0; > > } > > > > I'm not sure if pm_runtime_put() is the correct thing to do? The other > > thing is that this always returns zero on success. I don't know that > > drivers ever care to differentiate between one and zero returns. > > > > Then if any of the caller expect that behavior we update them to use the > > new function. > > Does that really have many benefits, though? I understand that this > would perhaps be easier to use because it is more in line with how other > functions operate. On the other hand, in some cases you may want to call > a different version of pm_runtime_put() on failure, as discussed in > other threads. I wasn't CC'd on the other threads so I don't know. :/ I have always assumed it was something like this but I don't know the details and there is no documentation. http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto You're essentially arguing that it's a #1 on Rusty's scale but ideally we would want to be at #7. > > Even ignoring that issue, any existing callsites that are leaking the > reference would have to be updated to call the new function, which would > be pretty much the same amount of work as updating the callsites to fix > the leak, right? With the current API we're constantly adding bugs. I imagine that once we add a straight forward default and some documentation then we will solve this. > > So if instead we just fix up the leaks, we might have a case of an API > that doesn't work as some of us (myself included) expected it, but at > least it would be consistent. If we add another variant things become > fragmented and therefore even more complicated to use and review. That's the approach that we've been trying and it's clearly not working. regards, dan carpenter