[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZYBhArHOAbLfOUb@unreal>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:32:20 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>, drivers@...sando.io,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] devlink: Clean registration of devlink port
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 08:49:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:26:20 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> >
> > devlink_port_register() is in-kernel API and as such can't really fail
> > as long as driver author didn't make a mistake by providing already existing
> > port index. Instead of relying on various error prints from the driver,
> > convert the existence check to be WARN_ON(), so such a mistake will be
> > caught easier.
> >
> > As an outcome of this conversion, it was made clear that this function
> > should be void and devlink->lock was intended to protect addition to
> > port_list.
>
> Leave this error checking in please.
Are you referring to error checks in the drivers or the below section
from devlink_port_register()?
mutex_lock(&devlink->lock);
if (devlink_port_index_exists(devlink, port_index)) {
mutex_unlock(&devlink->lock);
return -EEXIST;
}
Because if it is latter, any driver (I didn't find any) that will rely
on this -EEXIST field should have some sort of locking in top level.
Otherwise nothing will prevent from doing port unregister right
before "return --EXEEXIST".
So change to WARN_ON() will be much more effective in finding wrong
drivers, because they manage port_index and not devlink.
And because this function can't fail, the drivers have a plenty of dead
code.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists