linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/36] i2c: tegra: Runtime PM always available on Tegra

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aa58d225-f1f1-2b7e-0c66-c853a8ffd4e0@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 19:06:14 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/36] i2c: tegra: Runtime PM always available on Tegra

07.09.2020 18:34, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:25 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>> 07.09.2020 18:05, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:32 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> 07.09.2020 11:10, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Would be great if anyone could put effort into changing the default
>>>> get_sync() behaviour and add get_sync_nofail(). Otherwise this will be a
>>>> never ending problem.
>>>
>>> I didn't get this. For time being the API (yes, with its all cons) has
>>> the clear usage:
>>> a) don't check for errors -- you are fine
>>> b) if you start checking errors, keep in mind refcounting.
>>>
>>> So, I don't see how nofail() can fix b) case.
>>>
>>
>> It's a very unintuitive behaviour which none of other APIs have. I would
>> never expect the refcount to be bumped in a case of error, this is a
>> clear drawback of the API, IMO.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> Perhaps this is not seen as a problem by
>> people who have excellent memory and can easily remember about existence
>> of such non-standard quirks, or by people who're touching the RPM code
>> frequently.
> 
> ...or by running coccinelle script.
> 

Technically it shouldn't be a big problem to change the code, but I
could imagine the amount of effort it will take to get the changes
merged. IIRC, there was also a push back to a such change from the RPM
maintainer, so there could be difficulties beyond the code changes.