From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 09:35:39 +0200
Message-ID: <5389864B.4000107@metafoo.de>
References: <20140530094025.3b78301e@canb.auug.org.au>
 <1401449454-30895-1-git-send-email-berthe.ab@gmail.com>
 <1401449454-30895-2-git-send-email-berthe.ab@gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdV6AtjD2aqO3buzj8Eo7A7xc_+ROYnxEi2sdjMaqFiAuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5388C0F1.90503@gmail.com> <5388CB1B.3090802@metafoo.de>
 <20140530232922.GD25854@kroah.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
 David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
 "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
 driverdevel <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
 patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-samsungsoc@vger.kernel.org,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
 "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
 abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>, spear-devel@list.st.com,
 "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, m@bues.ch,
 "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
 "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
 linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Return-path: <driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140530232922.GD25854@kroah.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/options/driverdev-devel>,
 <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel>,
 <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org
Sender: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 05/31/2014 01:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>>>> @@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct
>>>>> gpio_chip *gpiochip);
>>>>>    *
>>>>>    * A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
>>>>>    */
>>>>> -int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>>>> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>          unsigned long   flags;
>>>>> -       int             status = 0;
>>>>>          unsigned        id;
>>>>>
>>>>>          acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>>>>> @@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>>>>          of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>>>>>
>>>>>          for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
>>>>> -               if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
>>>>> -                       status = -EBUSY;
>>>>> -                       break;
>>>>> -               }
>>>>> -       }
>>>>> -       if (status == 0) {
>>>>> -               for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
>>>>> -                       chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -               list_del(&chip->list);
>>>>> +               if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
>>>>> +                       panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still
>>>>> requested\n");
>>>>
>>>> panic?
>>>
>>> NACK to the patch for this reason.  The strongest thing you should do here
>>> is WARN.
>>>
>>> That said, I am not sure why we need this whole patch set in the first place.
>>
>> Well, what currently happens when you remove a device that is a provider of
>> a gpio_chip which is still in use, is that the kernel crashes. Probably with
>> a rather cryptic error message. So this patch doesn't really change the
>> behavior, but makes it more explicit what is actually wrong. And even if you
>> replace the panic() by a WARN() it will again just crash slightly later.
>>
>> This is a design flaw in the GPIO subsystem that needs to be fixed.
>
> Then fix the GPIO code properly, don't add a new panic() to the kernel.

Until somebody comes up with a patch that fixes this for good I think that 
patch is still an improvement over the current situation. Rather than 
keeping the kernel running in a inconsistent state, which might cause all 
kinds of undefined behavior and which will lead to a crash eventually, we 
might as well just crash the kernel at the cause of the inconsistent state. 
This will make it obvious why it crashed (compared to a random stacktrace) 
and will also prevent the kernel from running in a undefined state.

- Lars