From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <marcelo.jimenez@gmail.com>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
regressions@lists.linux.dev,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Edmond Chung <edmondchung@google.com>,
Andrew Chant <achant@google.com>,
Will McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com>,
Sergio Tanzilli <tanzilli@acmesystems.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:12:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a0ce4372-df94-a19c-063d-274e65da7c38@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=McPSFQFPP1nSTXj3snKWqQyzNgz0j_J5ooyUrhRFRMqJQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 16.02.22 15:40, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:56 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:24 AM Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
>> <marcelo.jimenez@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 1:55 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am curious about the usecases and how deeply you have built
>>>> yourselves into this.
>>>
>>> I don't know if I understand what you mean, sorry.
>>
>> Why does the user need the sysfs ABI? What is it used for?
>>
>> I.e what is the actual use case?
>>
>>>>> In any case, the upstream file should be enough to test the issue reported here.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is that upstream isn't super happy that you have been
>>>> making yourselves dependent on features that we are actively
>>>> discouraging and then demanding that we support these features.
>>>
>>> Hum, demanding seems to be a strong word for what I am doing here.
>>>
>>> Deprecated should not mean broken. My point is: the API seems to be
>>> currently broken. User space apps got broken, that's a fact. I even
>>> took the time to bisect the kernel and show you which commit broke it.
>>> So, no, I am not demanding. More like reporting and providing a
>>> temporary solution to those with a similar problem.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is time to remove the API, but this is up to "upstream".
>>> Leaving the API broken seems pointless and unproductive.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the "not super happiness of upstream", but maybe upstream
>>> got me wrong.
>>>
>>> We are not "making ourselves dependent on features ...". The API was
>>> there. We used it. Now it is deprecated, ok, we should move on. I got
>>> the message.
>>
>> Ouch I deserved some slamming for this.
>>
>> I'm sorry if I came across as harsh :(
>>
>> I just don't know how to properly push for this.
>>
>> I have even pushed the option of the deprecated sysfs ABI
>> behind the CONFIG_EXPERT option, which should mean that
>> the kernel config has been made by someone who has checked
>> the option "yes I am an expert I know what I am doing"
>> yet failed to observe that this ABI is obsoleted since 5 years
>> and hence failed to be an expert.
>>
>> Of course the ABI (not API really) needs to be fixed if we can find the
>> problem. It's frustrating that fixing it seems to fix broken other
>> features which are not deprecated, hence the annoyance on my
>> part.
>>
>
> I'm afraid we'll earn ourselves a good old LinusRant if we keep
> pushing the character device as a solution to the problem here.
> Marcelo is right after all: he used an existing user interface, the
> interface broke, it must be fixed.
>
> I would prefer to find a solution that fixes Marcelo's issue while
> keeping the offending patches in tree but it seems like the issue is
> more complicated and will require some rework of the sysfs interface.
>
> In which case unless there are objections I lean towards reverting the
> relevant commits.
Reviving and old thread, hence a quick reminder: The patch at the start
of this thread was applied and then reverted in 56e337f2cf13 with this text:
```
This commit - while attempting to fix a regression - has caused a number
of other problems. As the fallout from it is more significant than the
initial problem itself, revert it for now before we find a correct
solution.
```
I still have this on my list of open regressions and that made me
wonder: is anyone working on a "correct solution" (or was one even
applied and I missed it)? Or is the situation so tricky that we better
leave everything as it is? Marcelo, do you still care?
Ciao, Thorsten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-20 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-17 15:35 [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2021-12-18 6:28 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-20 14:57 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2021-12-20 15:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-12-20 19:24 ` Will McVicker
2021-12-20 20:41 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2021-12-20 20:41 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2021-12-20 20:41 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2022-01-10 7:02 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-01-12 0:09 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2022-02-08 12:24 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-17 19:11 ` Thierry Reding
2022-05-30 13:43 ` [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) #forregzbot Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-11 0:02 ` [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) Linus Walleij
2022-02-11 22:36 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2022-02-12 16:54 ` Linus Walleij
2022-02-13 23:23 ` Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2022-02-15 21:56 ` Linus Walleij
2022-02-16 14:40 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-03-04 7:13 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-03-07 9:58 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-03-07 10:12 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-03-15 5:18 ` [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) #forregzbot Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-20 9:12 ` Thorsten Leemhuis [this message]
2022-05-20 17:28 ` [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) Marcelo Roberto Jimenez
2022-03-14 15:55 ` Michael Walle
2022-03-15 15:32 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-03-15 15:45 ` Michael Walle
2022-03-17 8:37 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-03-17 8:48 ` Michael Walle
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=a0ce4372-df94-a19c-063d-274e65da7c38@leemhuis.info \
--to=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=achant@google.com \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=edmondchung@google.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.jimenez@gmail.com \
--cc=regressions@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tanzilli@acmesystems.it \
--cc=treding@nvidia.com \
--cc=vidyas@nvidia.com \
--cc=willmcvicker@google.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).