From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:50:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pmsawdvr.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211011204837.7617301b.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On Mon, Oct 11 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:33:45 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 11 2021, Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/11/21 1:59 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>> >> index 0fe7b2f2e7f5..c533d1dadc6b 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>> >> @@ -825,13 +825,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ccw_device_get_chid);
>> >> */
>> >> void *ccw_device_dma_zalloc(struct ccw_device *cdev, size_t size)
>> >> {
>> >> - return cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>> >> + void *addr;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!get_device(&cdev->dev))
>> >> + return NULL;
>> >> + addr = cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>> >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(addr))
>> >
>> > I can be wrong but it seems that only dma_alloc_coherent() used in
>> > cio_gp_dma_zalloc() report an error but the error is ignored and used as
>> > a valid pointer.
>>
>> Hm, I thought dma_alloc_coherent() returned either NULL or a valid
>> address?
>
> Yes, that is what is documented.
>
>>
>> >
>> > So shouldn't we modify this function and just test for a NULL address here?
>>
>> 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
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-12 13:51 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 [this message]
2021-10-12 22:37 ` Halil Pasic
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=87pmsawdvr.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=bfu@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.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=pasic@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).