linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] console: Introduce ->exit() callback
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:22:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200130132246.qesf6bupt4m3jnue@pathway.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200129142558.GF32742@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Wed 2020-01-29 16:25:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:41:41PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (20/01/28 11:44), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > If the console was not registered (hence not enabled) is it still required
> > > > to call ->exit()? Is there a requirement that ->exit() should handle such
> > > > cases?
> > > 
> > > This is a good point. The ->exit() purpose is to keep balance for whatever
> > > happened at ->setup().
> > > 
> > > But ->setup() is being called either when we have has_preferred == false or
> > > when we got no matching we call it for all such consoles, till it returns an
> > > error (can you elaborate the logic behind it?).
> > 
> > ->match() does alias matching and ->setup(). If alias matching failed,
> > exact name match takes place. We don't call ->setup() for all consoles,
> > but only for those that have exact name match:
> > 
> > 	if (strcmp(c->name, newcon->name) != 0)
> > 		continue;
> > 
> > As to why we don't stop sooner in that loop - I need to to do some
> > archaeology. We need to have CON_CONSDEV at proper place, which is
> > IIRC the last matching console.
> > 
> > Pretty much every time we tried to change the logic we ended up
> > reverting the changes.
> 
> I understand. Seems the ->setup() has to be idempotent. We can tell the same
> for ->exit() in some comment.

I believe that ->setup() can succeesfully be called only once.
It is tricky like hell:

1st piece:

	if (!has_preferred || bcon || !console_drivers)
		has_preferred = preferred_console >= 0;

  note:

     + "has_preferred" is updated here only when it was not "true" before.
     + "has_preferred" is set to "true" here only when "preferred_console"
       is set in __add_preferred_console()

2nd piece:

  + __add_preferred_console() is called for console defined on
    the command line. "preferred_console" points to the console
    defined by the last "console=" parameter.

3rd piece:

  + "has_preferred" is set to "true" later in register_console() when
    a console with tty binding gets enabled.

4th piece:

  + The code:

	/*
	 *	See if we want to use this console driver. If we
	 *	didn't select a console we take the first one
	 *	that registers here.
	 */
	if (!has_preferred)
		... try to enable the given console

   The comment is a bit unclear. The code is used as a fallback
   when no console was defined on the command line.

   Note that "has_preferred" is always true when "preferred_console"
   was defined via command line, see 2nd piece above.


By other words:

  + The fallback code (4th piece) is called only when
    "preferred_console" was not defined on the command line.

  + The cycle below matches the given console only when
    it was defined on the command line.


As a result, I believe that ->setup() could never be called
in both paths for the same console. Especially I think that
fallback code should not be used when the console was defined on
the command line.

I am not 100% sure but I am ready to risk this. Anyway, I think
that many ->setup() callbacks are not ready to be successfully
called twice.

(Sigh, I have started to clean up this code two years ago.
But I have never found time to finish the patchset. It is
such a huge mess.)

> Can you describe, btw, struct console in kernel doc format?
> It will be very helpful!
> 
> > > In both cases we will get the console to have CON_ENABLED flag set.
> > 
> > And there are sneaky consoles that have CON_ENABLED before we even
> > register them.
> 
> So, taking into consideration my comment to the previous patch, what would be
> suggested guard here?
> 
> For a starter something like this?
> 
>   if ((console->flags & CON_ENABLED) && console->exit)
> 	console->exit(console);

I would do:

	if (!res && console->exit)
		console->exit(console);

I mean. I would call ->exit() only when console->setup() succeeded in
register_console(). In this case, the console was later added to
the console_drivers list.

Best Regards,
Petr

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-01-30 13:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-27 11:47 [PATCH v3 1/5] console: Don't perform test for CON_BRL flag Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-27 11:47 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] console: Drop double check for console_drivers being non-NULL Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-29 13:24   ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-27 11:47 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] console: Use for_each_console() helper in unregister_console() Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-29 14:11   ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-27 11:47 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] console: Avoid positive return code from unregister_console() Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-28  4:43   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-28  9:22     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-28  9:25       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-28  9:37       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-28  9:52         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-30  9:04   ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-30  9:58     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-30 12:22       ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-30 13:13         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-27 11:47 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] console: Introduce ->exit() callback Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-28  5:17   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-28  9:44     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-29 13:41       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-29 14:25         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-29 15:12           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-29 16:50             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-01-30 13:14               ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-30 13:22           ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2020-01-30 13:39             ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-30  9:09   ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-30 10:01     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-29 12:29 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] console: Don't perform test for CON_BRL flag Petr Mladek

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=20200130132246.qesf6bupt4m3jnue@pathway.suse.cz \
    --to=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.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).