Date:	Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:21:49 -0800
From:	"Stephen Neuendorffer" <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com>
To:	"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	<linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>, "git-dev" <git-dev@...inx.com>,
	<jirislaby@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Xilinx: hwicap: cleanup



> -----Original Message-----
> From: glikely@...retlab.ca [mailto:glikely@...retlab.ca] On Behalf Of
Grant Likely
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 10:17 PM
> To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org; git-dev; jirislaby@...il.com;
linux.kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Xilinx: hwicap: cleanup
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer
> <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com> wrote:
> > Fix some missing __user tags and incorrect section tags.
> >  Convert semaphores to mutexes.
> >  Make probed_devices re-entrancy and error condition safe.
> >  Fix some backwards memcpys.
> >  Some other minor cleanups.
> >  Use kerneldoc format.
> >
> >  Signed-off-by: Stephen Neuendorffer
<stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com>
> 
> Thanks Steven, some more comments below.
> 
> >
> >  ---
> >
> >  Grant, Since it appears that the driver will stay in as-is, here
are
> >  the updates against mainline, based on Jiri's comments.
> >  ---
> >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c   |   80
++++++++++----------
> >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/fifo_icap.c     |   60 +++++++-------
> >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c |  113
++++++++++++++++------------
> >   drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.h |   24 +++---
> >   4 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)
> >
> >  diff --git a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
> >  index dfea2bd..2c5d17d 100644
> >  --- a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
> >  +++ b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/buffer_icap.c
> >  @@ -148,9 +148,9 @@ static inline void buffer_icap_set_size(void
__iomem *base_address,
> >   }
> >
> >   /**
> >  - * buffer_icap_mSetoffsetReg: Set the bram offset register.
> >  - * @parameter base_address: contains the base address of the
device.
> >  - * @parameter data: is the value to be written to the data
register.
> >  + * buffer_icap_mSetoffsetReg - Set the bram offset register.
> 
> This is the only function that is still in camel case; it should
> probably be changed also... In fact, this functions doesn't seem to be
> used at all.  Can it just be removed?  Are there any other unused
> functions in this driver?

Actually, it's just the comment that still had the old name.. Fixed it.

-Wall reports one unused static:

drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c:240: warning:
'hwicap_command_capture' defined but not used

I'd intended to leave this in, but I'm thinking it can be done by
userspace code using this driver, so I took it out too.

In verifying this, I discovered that I had inserted a variable names
'register', which doesn't work...  Fixed that too.

> >  diff --git a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> >  index 24f6aef..eddaa26 100644
> >  --- a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> >  +++ b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> >  @@ -344,7 +345,7 @@ int hwicap_initialize_hwicap(struct
hwicap_drvdata *drvdata)
> >   }
> >
> >   static ssize_t
> >  -hwicap_read(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t count, loff_t
*ppos)
> >  +hwicap_read(struct file *file, __user char *buf, size_t count,
loff_t *ppos)
> 
> This looks like it should be 'char __user *buf' instead of '__user
char *buf'.

Fixed.
 
> >   {
> >         struct hwicap_drvdata *drvdata = file->private_data;
> >         ssize_t bytes_to_read = 0;
> >   static ssize_t
> >  -hwicap_write(struct file *file, const char *buf,
> >  +hwicap_write(struct file *file, const __user char *buf,
> >                 size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> 
> Ditto on placement of __user

Fixed.

> 
> >  @@ -549,8 +556,7 @@ static int hwicap_release(struct inode *inode,
struct file *file)
> >         int i;
> >         int status = 0;
> >
> >  -       if (down_interruptible(&drvdata->sem))
> >  -               return -ERESTARTSYS;
> >  +       mutex_lock(&drvdata->sem);
> 
> Why not mutex_lock_interruptible()? (goes for all cases of
mutex_lock())

It's not clear to me how to get 'correct' behavior in these functions if
the interrupt happens.  For instance in probe/setup, if the mutex_lock
is interrupted, it doesn't appear that there is anything to do other
than return an error code that no device is present?  I think this was
suggested by Jiri...

Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists