From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.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 15:39:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200130133918.GA32742@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200130132246.qesf6bupt4m3jnue@pathway.suse.cz>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 02:22:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 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:
Indeed. I think this code is highly starving for comments.
> 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.)
Thanks for the elaboration in such details!
> > 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.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant in previous mails to you.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-30 13:39 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
2020-01-30 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
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=20200130133918.GA32742@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--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).