[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200128092235.GX32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:22:35 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] console: Avoid positive return code from
unregister_console()
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 01:43:32PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/01/27 13:47), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> [..]
> > res = _braille_unregister_console(console);
> > - if (res)
> > + if (res < 0)
> > return res;
> > + if (res > 0)
> > + return 0;
> >
> > - res = 1;
> > + res = -ENODEV;
> > console_lock();
> > if (console_drivers == console) {
> > console_drivers=console->next;
> > @@ -2838,6 +2840,9 @@ int unregister_console(struct console *console)
> > if (!res && (console->flags & CON_EXTENDED))
> > nr_ext_console_drivers--;
> >
> > + if (res && !(console->flags & CON_ENABLED))
> > + res = 0;
>
> Console is not on the console_drivers list. Why does !ENABLED case
> require extra handling?
It's mirroring (to some extend) the register_console() abort conditions.
> What about the case when console is ENABLED
> but still not registered?
What about when console is ENABLED and we call register_console()?
I think you can tell me what to do in these corner cases (however,
that's not the point of this series).
> I think that if the console is not on the list (was never registered)
> then we can just bail out, without console_sysfs_notify(), etc. IOW,
>
> if (res) {
> console->flags &= ~CON_ENABLED; /* just in case */
> console_unlock();
> return res;
> }
Perhaps. But see above. I would rather drop this condition for now
for sake of this series being to the point.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists