linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: Remove device link creation limitation
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:57:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190723075724.GB27243@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0h-nWr1vie61U6BzDxns+qmj_3EOFztE_X-CGgtzkz=ZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:34:54AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 5:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] driver core: Remove device link creation limitation
> >
> > If device_link_add() is called for a consumer/supplier pair with an
> > existing device link between them and the existing link's type is
> > not in agreement with the flags passed to that function by its
> > caller, NULL will be returned.  That is seriously inconvenient,
> > because it forces the callers of device_link_add() to worry about
> > what others may or may not do even if that is not relevant to them
> > for any other reasons.
> >
> > It turns out, however, that this limitation can be made go away
> > relatively easily.
> >
> > The underlying observation is that if DL_FLAG_STATELESS has been
> > passed to device_link_add() in flags for the given consumer/supplier
> > pair at least once, calling either device_link_del() or
> > device_link_remove() to release the link returned by it should work,
> > but there are no other requirements associated with that flag.  In
> > turn, if at least one of the callers of device_link_add() for the
> > given consumer/supplier pair has not passed DL_FLAG_STATELESS to it
> > in flags, the driver core should track the status of the link and act
> > on it as appropriate (ie. the link should be treated as "managed").
> > This means that DL_FLAG_STATELESS needs to be set for managed device
> > links and it should be valid to call device_link_del() or
> > device_link_remove() to drop references to them in certain
> > sutiations.
> >
> > To allow that to happen, introduce a new (internal) device link flag
> > called DL_FLAG_MANAGED and make device_link_add() set it automatically
> > whenever DL_FLAG_STATELESS is not passed to it.  Also make it take
> > additional references to existing device links that were previously
> > stateless (that is, with DL_FLAG_STATELESS set and DL_FLAG_MANAGED
> > unset) and will need to be managed going forward and initialize
> > their status (which has been DL_STATE_NONE so far).
> >
> > Accordingly, when a managed device link is dropped automatically
> > by the driver core, make it clear DL_FLAG_MANAGED, reset the link's
> > status back to DL_STATE_NONE and drop the reference to it associated
> > with DL_FLAG_MANAGED instead of just deleting it right away (to
> > allow it to stay around in case it still needs to be released
> > explicitly by someone).
> >
> > With that, since setting DL_FLAG_STATELESS doesn't mean that the
> > device link in question is not managed any more, replace all of the
> > status-tracking checks against DL_FLAG_STATELESS with analogous
> > checks against DL_FLAG_MANAGED and update the documentation to
> > reflect these changes.
> >
> > While at it, make device_link_add() reject flags that it does not
> > recognize, including DL_FLAG_MANAGED.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> 
> Do I need to resend this?
> 
> I know that posting new things during a merge window is not most
> convenient, sorry about that.

No, it's in my queue, give me a few days to dig out from my huge pending
patch list, no need to resend it.

thanks,

greg k-h

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-23  7:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-16 15:21 [PATCH v2] driver core: Remove device link creation limitation Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-16 18:49 ` Saravana Kannan
2019-07-23  7:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-23  7:57   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2019-07-29 15:48 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-07-29 20:46   ` Saravana Kannan
2019-07-29 21:24     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-29 21:43       ` Saravana Kannan
2019-07-29 22:03         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-29 22:13           ` Saravana Kannan
2019-07-29 21:50   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-30  7:04     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-07-30  8:54     ` Jon Hunter

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=20190723075724.GB27243@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=saravanak@google.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    /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).