linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm: Make .remove and .shutdown HW shutdown consistent

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:   Sun, 24 Jul 2022 20:47:40 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm: Make .remove and .shutdown HW shutdown
 consistent

Hello Dmitry,

Thanks for your feedback.

On 7/24/22 20:36, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 at 14:13, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javierm@...hat.com> wrote:

[...]

>>
>> +/*
>> + * Shutdown the hw if we're far enough along where things might be on.
>> + * If we run this too early, we'll end up panicking in any variety of
>> + * places. Since we don't register the drm device until late in
>> + * msm_drm_init, drm_dev->registered is used as an indicator that the
>> + * shutdown will be successful.
>> + *
>> + * This function must only be called if drm_dev->registered is true.
>> + */
>> +static inline void msm_shutdown_hw(struct drm_device *dev)
>> +{
>> +       drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(dev);
>> +}
> 
> Now there is no point in having this as a separate function. Could you

The only reason why I kept this was to avoid duplicating the same comment
in two places. I thought that an inline function would be better than that.

> please inline it?
>

That's already the case. Sorry but I have to ask, do you read my patches
before commenting? I have the feeling that is the second time that you ask
for something that was already done in the patch.
 
[...]

>>
>> -       if (!priv || !priv->kms)
>> -               return;
>> -
>> -       drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(drm);
> 
> It might be worth repeating the comment here.
>

As mentioned I thought about it. But then decided that an inline function would
be better to have the comment just in one place. I don't have a strong opinion
though so I could change if others agree that duplicating the comment is better.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat