From: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@icloud.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 0/2] driver core: bus: Fix issues related to bus_rescan_devices_helper()
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:43:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <beebf034-f2a6-4451-b68c-2f23f8dc92ec@icloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2024111228-snowcap-counting-b833@gregkh>
On 2024/11/12 19:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 07:18:00PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
>> This patch series is to fix issues related to bus_rescan_devices_helper().
>>
>> The function is improperly used for 2 incompatible scenarios as
>> explained below:
>>
>> Scenario A: scan drivers for a single device user specify
>> - user may care about precise synchronous scanning result, so the
>> function can not collapse error codes.
>
> I do not understand this, what is wrong that this is fixing?
>
for scanning drivers for single device, it gives user wrong scanning
result(success or failure).
patch 1/2 is a concrete example.
>> Scenario B: scan drivers for all devices of a bus
>> - user may need to scan drivers for a bus's devices as many as
>> possible, so the function needs to ignore inconsequential error
>> codes for a device in order to continue to scan for next device.
>
> How often is that needed? And why can't that still work with the
> existing code?
>
1) API bus_rescan_devices() invokes it and can't achieve its design
purpose due to error described above.
2) as shown by recent mainlined commit, usage of API
bus_rescan_devices() have been dropped due to some bugs.
Commit: 3d6ebf16438d ("cxl/port: Fix cxl_bus_rescan() vs
bus_rescan_devices()")
3) there are only 2 usages for the API now.
// does not do what the comments say
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/pcmcia/ds.c#L725
// do multi repeated iterating, can be simplified if fix the API bugs
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/hid/hid-core.c#L2967
4) i have more reply in below link about the API's bugs.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240913-bus_match_unlikely-v2-2-5c0c3bfda2f6@quicinc.com/
we may go to patch 2/2 to continue discussion.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-13 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-22 11:18 Zijun Hu
2024-10-22 11:18 ` [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] driver core: bus: Fix drivers_probe_store() giving user wrong scanning result Zijun Hu
2024-10-22 11:18 ` [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] driver core: bus: Correct API bus_rescan_devices() behavior Zijun Hu
2024-11-12 11:48 ` [PATCH RESEND v2 0/2] driver core: bus: Fix issues related to bus_rescan_devices_helper() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-11-13 13:42 ` Zijun Hu
2024-11-13 13:43 ` Zijun Hu [this message]
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=beebf034-f2a6-4451-b68c-2f23f8dc92ec@icloud.com \
--to=zijun_hu@icloud.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/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®