lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip
    On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:04:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 08:53:42AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
    > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 01:31:00AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
    > > >
    > > > +static int tpm_add_tpm2_char_device(struct tpm_chip *chip)
    >
    > BTW, this naming is crap.
    >
    > - 2x tpm
    > - char is useless
    >
    > -> tpm2_add_device

    Actually, tpm2s_add_device() add put it to tpm2-space.c.

    > > > +{
    > > > + int rc;
    > > > +
    > > > + device_initialize(&chip->devs);
    > > > + chip->devs.parent = chip->dev.parent;
    > > > + chip->devs.class = tpmrm_class;
    > > > +
    > > > + rc = dev_set_name(&chip->devs, "tpmrm%d", chip->dev_num);
    > > > + if (rc)
    > > > + goto out_put_devs;
    >
    > Right, and empty line missing here.
    >
    > > > + /*
    > > > + * get extra reference on main device to hold on behalf of devs.
    > > > + * This holds the chip structure while cdevs is in use. The
    > > > + * corresponding put is in the tpm_devs_release.
    > > > + */
    > > > + get_device(&chip->dev);
    > > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
    > > > + chip->devs.devt =
    > > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
    >
    > Isn't this less than 100 chars?
    >
    > > > + cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops);
    > > > + chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE;
    > > > +
    > > > + rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs);
    > > > + if (rc) {
    > > > + dev_err(&chip->devs,
    > > > + "unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
    > > > + dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt),
    > > > + MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc);
    > > > + goto out_put_devs;
    > > > + }
    > > > +
    > > > + return 0;
    > > > +
    > > > +out_put_devs:
    > > > + put_device(&chip->devs);
    > >
    > > I'd rather you organize this so chip->devs.release and the get_device
    > > is always sent instead of having the possiblity for a put_device that
    > > doesn't call release
    >
    > /Jarkko

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-02-17 11:38    [W:3.448 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site