[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2a6e29063793eecc5c65d32af9d826544404ecc.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 22:54:34 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, swboyd@...omium.org,
khsieh@...eaurora.org, nganji@...eaurora.org,
seanpaul@...omium.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org, aravindh@...eaurora.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcoredump: increase the device delete timeout to 10
mins
On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 13:40 -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >
> I am checking what usermode sees and will get back ( I didnt see an
> error do most likely it was EOF ). I didnt follow the second part.
I think probably it got -ENODEV, looking at kernfs_file_read_iter().
> If the file descriptor read returns EOF, even if we consider them
> separate how will it resolve this issue?
>
> My earlier questions were related to fixing it in devcoredump to detect
> and fix it there. Are you suggesting to fix in usermode instead? How?
>
Yeah, no, you cannot fix it in userspace.
But I just followed the rabbit hole down kernfs and all, and it looks
like indeed the read would be cut short with -ENODEV, sorry.
It doesn't look like there's good API for this, but it seems at least
from the underlying kernfs POV it should be possible to get_device() in
open and put_device() in release, so that the device sticks around while
somebody has the file open? It's entirely virtual, so this should be OK?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists