[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023070327-gangway-comic-6e15@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:38:42 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] include/uapi pps.h: drop not needed PPS_MAX_SOURCES
define
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On 30/06/23 14:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:50:33AM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > > On 30/06/23 09:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:18:26AM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > > > > Userspace PPS clients should not known about how many PPS sources can
> > > > > be defined within the system (nor the rfc2783 say so), so we can
> > > > > safely drop this define since is not used anymore in the kernel too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/pps/pps.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > include/uapi/linux/pps.h | 1 -
> > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pps/pps.c b/drivers/pps/pps.c
> > > > > index 5d19baae6a38..1a6131608036 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pps/pps.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pps/pps.c
> > > > > @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ int pps_register_cdev(struct pps_device *pps)
> > > > > * Get new ID for the new PPS source. After idr_alloc() calling
> > > > > * the new source will be freely available into the kernel.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - err = idr_alloc(&pps_idr, pps, 0, PPS_MAX_SOURCES, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > + err = idr_alloc(&pps_idr, pps, 0, MINORMASK, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > if (err < 0) {
> > > > > if (err == -ENOSPC) {
> > > > > pr_err("%s: too many PPS sources in the system\n",
> > > > > @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pps_lookup_dev);
> > > > > static void __exit pps_exit(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > class_destroy(pps_class);
> > > > > - unregister_chrdev_region(pps_devt, PPS_MAX_SOURCES);
> > > > > + unregister_chrdev_region(pps_devt, MINORMASK);
> > > > > }
> > > > > static int __init pps_init(void)
> > > > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static int __init pps_init(void)
> > > > > }
> > > > > pps_class->dev_groups = pps_groups;
> > > > > - err = alloc_chrdev_region(&pps_devt, 0, PPS_MAX_SOURCES, "pps");
> > > > > + err = alloc_chrdev_region(&pps_devt, 0, MINORMASK, "pps");
> > > > > if (err < 0) {
> > > > > pr_err("failed to allocate char device region\n");
> > > > > goto remove_class;
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pps.h b/include/uapi/linux/pps.h
> > > > > index 90f2e86020ba..8a4096f18af1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/pps.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pps.h
> > > > > @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > #define PPS_VERSION "5.3.6"
> > > > > -#define PPS_MAX_SOURCES MINORMASK
> > > >
> > > > Why change this in patch 1, and then delete this here?
> > > >
> > > > That makes no sense.
> > >
> > > I did it in two steps to be clear that the first step is about a better
> > > redefinition of the PPS_MAX_SOURCES define, while the second step is about
> > > the fact it's now that define is useless.
> >
> > Better to just convert everything in patch one, and then in patch 2
> > delete the .h #define. That way, when userspace breaks, you can revert
> > just the last patch :)
>
> I'm puzzled since I did as you say... patch 1/2 increases PPS_MAX_SOURCES
> value while patch 2/2 drops PPS_MAX_SOURCES define.
Ah, I thought patch 1/2 renamed it.
But why increase it if you are removing it?
> > > > And if this is exported to userspace, removing it should break things,
> > > > right? If not, why was it there in the first place?
> > >
> > > In reality such define is not stated within the PPS RFC2783, so userspace
> > > programs whose relies on such define are broken.
> >
> > RFC's do not document Linux kernel apis.
>
> It's true, but well written PPS clients should relay only on PPS API which
> in turn doesn't states that define. :P
Are you sure? Have you audited the clients? if so, please document
that in the changelog text.
> > So if any userspace code breaks, you have to put this back, sorry.
>
> If you think that patch 2 is not good, no problem, just drop it, but please
> just consider applying patch 1, since increasing PPS_MAX_SOURCES value is
> good.
You can't change a uapi value either without breaking things :(
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists