From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, bfu@redhat.com,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] s390/cio: make ccw_device_dma_* more robust
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:37:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211013003714.1c411f0b.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pmsawdvr.fsf@redhat.com>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:50:48 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> If I read cio_gp_dma_zalloc() correctly, we either get NULL or a valid
> >> address, so yes.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think the extra care will hurt us too badly. I prefer to keep
> > the IS_ERR_OR_NULL() check because it needs less domain specific
> > knowledge to be understood, and because it is more robust.
>
> It feels weird, though -- I'd rather have a comment that tells me
This way the change feels simpler and safer to me. I believe I explained
the why above. But if you insist I can change it. I double checked the
cio_gp_dma_zalloc() code, and more or less the code called by it. So
now I don't feel uncomfortable with the simpler check.
On the other hand, I'm not very happy doing changes solely based on
somebody's feelings. It would feel much more comfortable with a reason
based discussion.
One reason to change this to a simple NULL check, is that the
IS_ERR_OR_NULL() check could upset the reader of the client code,
which only checks for NULL.
On the other hand I do believe we have some risk of lumping together
different errors here. E.g. dma_pool is NULL or dma ops are not set up
properly. Currently we would communicate that kind of a problem as
-ENOMEM, which wouldn't be a great match. But since dma_alloc_coherent()
returns either NULL or a valid pointer, and furthermore this looks like
a common thing in all the mm-api, I decided to be inline with that.
TLDR; If you insist, I will change this to a simple null pointer check.
> exactly what cio_gp_dma_zalloc() is supposed to return; I would have
> expected that a _zalloc function always gives me a valid pointer or
> NULL.
I don't think we have such a comment for dma_alloc_coherent() or even
kmalloc(). I agree, it would be nice to have this behavior documented
in the apidoc all over the place. But IMHO that is a different issue.
Regards,
Halil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-12 22:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-11 11:59 [RFC PATCH 1/1] s390/cio: make ccw_device_dma_* more robust Halil Pasic
2021-10-11 13:45 ` Pierre Morel
2021-10-11 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-11 18:48 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-12 13:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-12 22:37 ` Halil Pasic [this message]
2021-10-13 6:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-12 14:10 ` Pierre Morel
2021-10-11 18:42 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-12 13:36 ` Vineeth Vijayan
2021-10-12 21:32 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-13 7:29 ` Vineeth Vijayan
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=20211013003714.1c411f0b.pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--to=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bfu@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mimu@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=oberpar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vneethv@linux.ibm.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).