mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@icloud.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
	linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cxl/region: Prevent device_find_child() from modifying caller's match data
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 06:18:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9030e7e9-7255-497e-be4c-5bba3a373a54@icloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66c8d0a7eddc5_a87cd294e1@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>

On 2024/8/24 02:10, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Zijun Hu wrote:
>> On 2024/8/20 21:59, Ira Weiny wrote:
>>> Zijun Hu wrote:
>>>> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
>>>>
>>>> To prepare for constifying the following old driver core API:
>>>>
>>>> struct device *device_find_child(struct device *dev, void *data,
>>>> 		int (*match)(struct device *dev, void *data));
>>>> to new:
>>>> struct device *device_find_child(struct device *dev, const void *data,
>>>> 		int (*match)(struct device *dev, const void *data));
>>>>
>>>> The new API does not allow its match function (*match)() to modify
>>>> caller's match data @*data, but match_free_decoder() as the old API's
>>>> match function indeed modifies relevant match data, so it is not
>>>> suitable for the new API any more, fixed by implementing a equivalent
>>>> cxl_device_find_child() instead of the old API usage.
>>>
>>> Generally it seems ok but I think some name changes will make this more
>>> clear.  See below.
>>>
>>
>> okay.
>>
>>> Also for those working on CXL I'm questioning the use of ID here and the
>>> dependence on the id's being added to the parent in order.  Is that a
>>> guarantee?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cxl/core/region.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
>>>> index 21ad5f242875..8d8f0637f7ac 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
>>>> @@ -134,6 +134,39 @@ static const struct attribute_group *get_cxl_region_access1_group(void)
>>>>  	return &cxl_region_access1_coordinate_group;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +struct cxl_dfc_data {
>>>
>>> struct cxld_match_data
>>>
>>> 'cxld' == cxl decoder in our world.
>>>
>>
>> make sense.
>>
>>>> +	int (*match)(struct device *dev, void *data);
>>>> +	void *data;
>>>> +	struct device *target_device;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static int cxl_dfc_match_modify(struct device *dev, void *data)
>>>
>>> Why not just put this logic into match_free_decoder?
>>>
>>
>> Actually, i ever considered solution B as you suggested in the end.
>>
>> For this change, namely, solution A:
>> 1) this change is clearer and easier to understand.
>> 2) this change does not touch any existing cxld logic
>>
>> For solution B:
>> it is more reasonable
>>
>> i finally select A since it can express my concern and relevant solution
>> clearly.
> 
> Understood.
> 
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct cxl_dfc_data *dfc_data = data;
>>>> +	int res;
>>>> +
>>>> +	res = dfc_data->match(dev, dfc_data->data);
>>>> +	if (res && get_device(dev)) {
>>>> +		dfc_data->target_device = dev;
>>>> +		return res;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * I have the same function as device_find_child() but allow to modify
>>>> + * caller's match data @*data.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> No need for this comment after the new API is established.
>>>
>>
>> i have given up the idea within v1 to introduce a new API which *should
>> ONLY* be used by this patch series, so it is not worthy of a new API
>> even if it can bring convenient for this patch series.
> 
> I'm not clear on this.  Are you still proposing to change the parameter to
> const?
> 
yes.
>>
>>>> +static struct device *cxl_device_find_child(struct device *parent, void *data,
>>>> +					    int (*match)(struct device *dev, void *data))
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct cxl_dfc_data dfc_data = {match, data, NULL};
>>>> +
>>>> +	device_for_each_child(parent, &dfc_data, cxl_dfc_match_modify);
>>>> +	return dfc_data.target_device;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  static ssize_t uuid_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>>>>  			 char *buf)
>>>>  {
>>>> @@ -849,7 +882,8 @@ cxl_region_find_decoder(struct cxl_port *port,
>>>>  		dev = device_find_child(&port->dev, &cxlr->params,
>>>>  					match_auto_decoder);
>>>>  	else
>>>> -		dev = device_find_child(&port->dev, &id, match_free_decoder);
>>>> +		dev = cxl_device_find_child(&port->dev, &id,
>>>> +					    match_free_decoder);
>>>
>>> This is too literal.  How about the following (passes basic cxl-tests).
>>>
>>
>> it is reasonable.
>>
>> do you need me to submit that you suggest in the end and add you as
>> co-developer ?
> 
> You can submit it with Suggested-by:
> 
okay.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> you submit it by yourself ?
>>
>> either is okay for me.
>>
>>> Ira
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c              
>>> index 21ad5f242875..c1e46254efb8 100644                                         
>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c                                                 
>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c                                                 
>>> @@ -794,10 +794,15 @@ static size_t show_targetN(struct cxl_region *cxlr, char *buf, int pos)
>>>         return rc;                                                              
>>>  }                                                                              
>>>                                                                                 
>>> +struct cxld_match_data {                                                       
>>> +       int id;                                                                 
>>> +       struct device *target_device;                                           
>>> +};                                                                             
>>> +                                                                               
>>>  static int match_free_decoder(struct device *dev, void *data)                  
>>>  {                                                                              
>>> +       struct cxld_match_data *match_data = data;                              
>>>         struct cxl_decoder *cxld;                                               
>>> -       int *id = data;                                                         
>>>                                                                                 
>>>         if (!is_switch_decoder(dev))                                            
>>>                 return 0;                                                       
>>> @@ -805,17 +810,30 @@ static int match_free_decoder(struct device *dev, void *data)
>>>         cxld = to_cxl_decoder(dev);                                             
>>>                                                                                 
>>>         /* enforce ordered allocation */                                        
>>> -       if (cxld->id != *id)                                                    
>>> +       if (cxld->id != match_data->id)                                         
>>>                 return 0;                                                       
>>>                                                                                 
>>> -       if (!cxld->region)                                                      
>>> +       if (!cxld->region && get_device(dev)) {                                 
>>
>> get_device(dev) failure may cause different logic against existing
>> but i think it should be impossible to happen normally.
> 
> Indeed this is slightly different.  :-/
> 
> Move the get_device() to find_free_decoder()?
> 
i think we can keep your change. so ignore this slight difference.
i also notice that you have done some verification for this change.
> Ira
> 
>>
>>> +               match_data->target_device = dev;                                
>>>                 return 1;                                                       
>>> +       }                                                                       
>>>                                                                                 
>>> -       (*id)++;                                                                
>>> +       match_data->id++;                                                       
>>>                                                                                 
>>>         return 0;                                                               
>>>  }                                                                              
>>>                                                                                 
>>> +static struct device *find_free_decoder(struct device *parent)                 
>>> +{                                                                              
>>> +       struct cxld_match_data match_data = {                                   
>>> +               .id = 0,                                                        
>>> +               .target_device = NULL,                                          
>>> +       };                                                                      
>>> +                                                                               
>>> +       device_for_each_child(parent, &match_data, match_free_decoder);         
>>> +       return match_data.target_device;                                        
>>> +}                                                                              
>>> +                                                                               
> 
> [snip]


  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-23 22:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-15 14:58 [PATCH v2 0/4] driver core: " Zijun Hu
2024-08-15 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] driver core: Make parameter check consistent for API cluster device_(for_each|find)_child() Zijun Hu
2024-08-20 12:53   ` Ira Weiny
2024-08-20 13:40     ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-20 14:14       ` Ira Weiny
2024-08-21 14:44         ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-23 17:19           ` Ira Weiny
2024-08-23 21:45             ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-24  3:21           ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-08-24  3:23   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-08-15 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] cxl/region: Prevent device_find_child() from modifying caller's match data Zijun Hu
2024-08-20 13:59   ` Ira Weiny
2024-08-21 12:46     ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-23 18:10       ` Ira Weiny
2024-08-23 22:18         ` Zijun Hu [this message]
2024-08-24  3:29     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-08-15 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] firewire: core: " Zijun Hu
2024-08-17  9:57   ` Takashi Sakamoto
2024-08-18 14:24     ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-19  8:58       ` Takashi Sakamoto
2024-08-19 11:41         ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-21 14:29   ` Takashi Sakamoto
2024-08-21 14:51     ` Zijun Hu
2024-08-15 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] net: qcom/emac: " Zijun Hu
2024-08-24  3:29   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-08-24  7:11     ` Zijun Hu

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=9030e7e9-7255-497e-be4c-5bba3a373a54@icloud.com \
    --to=zijun_hu@icloud.com \
    --cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=timur@kernel.org \
    --cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.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®