linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for FWNODE_FLAG_NEEDS_CHILD_BOUND_ON

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:04:36 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for
 FWNODE_FLAG_NEEDS_CHILD_BOUND_ON_ADD

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:54:47PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:03 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > There are cases where the children try to probe too quickly (before
> > > the parent has had time to set up all the resources it's setting up)
> > > and the child defers the probe. Even Andrew had an example of that
> > > with some ethernet driver where the deferred probe is attempted
> > > multiple times wasting time and then it eventually succeeds.
> >
> > And i prefer an occasional EPROBE_DEFER over a broken Ethernet switch,
> > which is the current state. I'm happy to see optimisations, but not at
> > the expense of breaking working stuff.
> 
> Right, but in that case, the long term solution should be to make
> changes so we don't expect the child to be bound as soon as it's
> added. Not disable the optimization. Agree?

Maybe. Lets see how you fix what is currently broken. At the moment, i
don't care too much about the long term solution. The current quick
fix for stable does not seem to be making any progress. So we need the
real fix now, to unbreak what is currently broken, then we can think
about the long term.

    Andrew