linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
	toshi.kani@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:34:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1398137679.2805.28.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140421224606.GE22730@htj.dyndns.org>

On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 18:46 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:23:50PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> 
> Proper /** function comment would be nice.

Ok, will try to write some in next version.

> 
> > +struct kernfs_node *lock_device_hotplug_sysfs(struct device *dev,
> > +					       struct device_attribute *attr)
> 
> I can see why you did this but let's please not require the user of
> this function to see how the thing is working internally.  Let's
> return int and keep track of (or look up again) the kernfs_node
> internally.

Ok, it also makes the prototype of lock and unlock look more consistent
and comfortable. 

> 
> >  {
> ...
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We assume device_hotplug_lock must be acquired before removing
> 
> Is this assumption true?  If so, can we add lockdep assertions in
> places to verify and enforce this?  If not, aren't we just feeling
> good when the reality is broken?

It seems not true ... I think there are devices that don't have the
online/offline concept, we just need to add it, remove it, like ethernet
cards. 

Maybe we could change the comments above, like:
	/* We assume device_hotplug_lock must be acquired before 
	 * removing devices, which have online/offline sysfs knob, 
	 * and some locks are needed to serialize the online/offline
	 * callbacks and device removing. ...
? 

And we could add lockdep assertions in cpu and memory related code? e.g.
remove_memory(), unregister_cpu()

Currently, remove_memory() has comments for the function:

 * NOTE: The caller must call lock_device_hotplug() to serialize hotplug
 * and online/offline operations before this call, as required by
 * try_offline_node().
 */
    
maybe it could be removed with the lockdep assertion.

> ...
> 
> Function comment please.

OK. 

Thanks, Zhong

> > +void unlock_device_hotplug_sysfs(struct device *dev,
> > +				 struct kernfs_node *kn)
> > +{
> > +	unlock_device_hotplug();
> > +	kernfs_unbreak_active_protection(kn);
> > +	put_device(dev);
> > +	kernfs_put(kn);
> >  }
> 
> Thanks.
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-22  3:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-10  9:18 [RFC PATCH] Suppress a device hot remove related lockdep warning Li Zhong
2014-04-10 13:31 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-11  4:10   ` [RFC PATCH v2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks Li Zhong
2014-04-11 10:26     ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-14  7:47       ` [RFC PATCH v3] " Li Zhong
2014-04-14 20:13         ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-15  2:44           ` Li Zhong
2014-04-15 14:50             ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-16  1:41               ` Li Zhong
2014-04-16 15:17                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-17  3:05                   ` Li Zhong
2014-04-17 15:06                     ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-17  6:50                   ` [RFC PATCH v4] " Li Zhong
2014-04-17 15:17                     ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-18  8:33                       ` Li Zhong
2014-04-21  9:20                       ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Li Zhong
2014-04-21  9:23                         ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks Li Zhong
2014-04-21 22:46                           ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-22  3:34                             ` Li Zhong [this message]
2014-04-22 10:11                               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23  1:50                                 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 10:54                                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-24  1:13                                     ` Li Zhong
2014-04-22 20:44                               ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-22 22:21                                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23 14:23                                   ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-23 16:12                                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23 16:52                                       ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24  8:59                                       ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 10:02                                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-25  1:46                                           ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 12:47                                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-28  1:49                                               ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23  5:03                                 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 10:58                                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-24  1:33                                     ` Li Zhong
2014-05-09  8:35                               ` Li Zhong
2014-05-09  8:40                                 ` [RFC PATCH v6 1/2 ] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Li Zhong
2014-05-09  8:40                                   ` [RFC PATCH v6 2/2] Implement lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() by breaking active protection Li Zhong
2014-04-21 22:38                         ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Tejun Heo
2014-04-22  2:29                           ` Li Zhong
2014-04-22 20:40                             ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-23  2:00                               ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 14:39                                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24  8:37                                   ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 14:32                                     ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-25  1:56                                       ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 12:28                                         ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-28  0:51                                           ` Li Zhong

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=1398137679.2805.28.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com \
    --to=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=toshi.kani@hp.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).