mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
	"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH driver-core/master] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:29:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170116182912.GA13946@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116145706.19198-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:57:06PM +0000, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
> return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
> fw_state_wait_timeout() means FW load has to be aborted.  This is
> incorrect FW load only has to be aborted when load timed out or

You want a comma before FW -- but also:

> has been interrupted,

__fw_state_wait_common() returns -ENOENT when:

if (ret != 0 && fw_st->status == FW_STATUS_ABORTED)
	return -ENOENT;

Why not for when -ENOENT is returned ?

> otherwise the waking thread had already
> cleaned up for us.

What code in what waking thread would have done precisely what cleanup?
And why can't fw_load_abort() handle being called twice and why not just
instead allow for that?

> Fixes: 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait() return value")

What does this fix exactly? A fix should describe the impact, what
issues are in place without the fix. What also happens after the fix
and why. In this commit log none of this is clear.

> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> index 4497d263209f..ce142e6b2c72 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ static int _request_firmware_load(struct firmware_priv *fw_priv,
>  	}
>  
>  	retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(&buf->fw_st, timeout);
> -	if (retval < 0) {
> +	if (retval == -ETIMEDOUT || retval == -ERESTARTSYS) {

Also, if your change is correct I will also note fw_state_wait_timeout()
is just a wrapper for __fw_state_wait_common(), but we also have
another wrapper for __fw_state_wait_common() now:

#define fw_state_wait(fw_st)                                    \               
        __fw_state_wait_common(fw_st, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) 

Do we need to fix anything for fw_state_wait() ?

Clarifying all this would help review your proposed changes. If you
consider them a fix please be very clear as to the exact issue and
what is fixed with your patch.

  Luis

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-16 18:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-16 14:57 Jakub Kicinski
2017-01-16 18:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2017-01-16 19:13   ` Jakub Kicinski

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=20170116182912.GA13946@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
    --cc=oss-drivers@netronome.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®