lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: perf: Mark as non-removable
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:19:46AM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
> On Thursday 22 December 2016 22:48:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 04:03:40PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:

> > More generally, updating each and every driver in this manner seems like a
> > scattergun approach that is tiresome and error prone.
> >
> > IMO, it would be vastly better for a higher layer to enforce that we don't
> > attempt to unbind drivers where the driver does not have a remove callback,
> > as is the case here (and I suspect most over cases where
> > DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE is blowing up).
>
> You mean something like this?
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > index 4eabfe2..3b6c1a2d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > @@ -158,6 +158,9 @@ int driver_register(struct device_driver *drv)
> >
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "Driver '%s' needs updating - please use
> > "
> >
> > "bus_type methods\n", drv->name);
> >
> > + if (!drv->remove)
> > + drv->suppress_bind_attrs = true;
> > +
> >
> > other = driver_find(drv->name, drv->bus);
> > if (other) {
> >
> > printk(KERN_ERR "Error: Driver '%s' is already registered, "

Something of that sort, yes. Or have a bus-level callback so that the
bus can reject it dynamically (without having to alter the drv attrs).

> > Is there any reason that can't be enforced at the bus layer, say?
>
> I'm not sure if the change above works with remove functions set in struct
> bus_type too.
> But on the other hand this would hide errors in drivers which are actually
> removable but do not cleanup properly which DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE tries to
> detect.
> By setting .suppress_bind_attrs = true explicitely you state "This
> driver cannot be removed!", so the remove callback is not missing by accident.

I'm not sure I follow. If the remove callback is accidentally missing,
the driver is not "actually removable" today -- there's either no remove
code, or it's not been wired up (the latter of which will likely result
in a compiler warning about an unused function).

Aborting the remove early in those cases is much safer than forcefully
removing a driver without a remove callback.

Thanks,
Mark.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-04 12:31    [W:0.061 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site