lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:51:23 -0600
Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:

> Allow drivers to report at probe time that they cannot get all the resources
> required by the device, and should be retried at a later time.
>
> This should completely solve the problem of getting devices
> initialized in the right order. Right now this is mostly handled by
> mucking about with initcall ordering which is a complete hack, and
> doesn't even remotely handle the case where device drivers are in
> modules. This approach completely sidesteps the issues by allowing
> driver registration to occur in any order, and any driver can request
> to be retried after a few more other drivers get probed.

What happens is there is a circular dependency, or if a driver's
preconditions are never met? AFAICT the code keeps running the probe
function for ever.

If so: bad. The kernel should detect such situations, should
exhaustively report them and if possible, fix them up and struggle
onwards.

>
> ...
>
> + * This bit is tricky. We want to process every device in the
> + * deferred list, but devices can be removed from the list at any
> + * time while inside this for-each loop. There are two things that
> + * need to be protected against:
> + * - if the device is removed from the deferred_probe_list, then we
> + * loose our place in the loop. Since any device can be removed

s/loose/lose/

> + * asynchronously, list_for_each_entry_safe() wouldn't make things
> + * much better. Simplest solution is to restart walking the list
> + * whenever the current device gets removed. Not the most efficient,
> + * but is simple to implement and easy to audit for correctness.
> + * - if the device is unregistered, and freed, then there is a risk
> + * of a null pointer dereference. This code uses get/put_device()
> + * to ensure the device cannot disappear from under our feet.
> + */
>
> ...
>
> + /* Drop the mutex while probing each device; the probe path
> + * may manipulate the deferred list */

Please don't invent new coding styles. Like this:

/*
* Drop the mutex while probing each device; the probe path
* may manipulate the deferred list
*/

(entire patch)

>
> ...
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-11 22:51    [W:0.227 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site