linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: platform: set numa_node before platform_add

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230914040007.3196-1-guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:00:07 +0800
From:   Jinhui Guo <guojinhui.liam@...edance.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     guojinhui.liam@...edance.com, lenb@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lizefan.x@...edance.com, lkp@...el.com, rafael@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: platform: set numa_node before platform_add_device()

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 06:37:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:38:25PM +0800, guojinhui wrote:
> > From: "guojinhui" <guojinhui.liam@...edance.com>
> > 
> > platform_add_device creates numa_node attribute of sysfs according to
> > whether dev_to_node(dev) is equal to NUMA_NO_NODE. So set the numa node
> > of the device before creating numa_node attribute of sysfs.
> > 
> > Fixes: 4a60406d3592 ("driver core: platform: expose numa_node to users in sysfs")
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309122309.mbxAnAIe-lkp@intel.com/
> > Signed-off-by: guojinhui <guojinhui.liam@...edance.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c |  4 +---
> >  drivers/base/platform.c      | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > index 48d15dd785f6..adcbfbdc343f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > @@ -178,11 +178,9 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >  	if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> >  		dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n",
> >  			PTR_ERR(pdev));
> > -	else {
> > -		set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
> > +	else
> >  		dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "created platform device %s\n",
> >  			dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	kfree(resources);
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index 76bfcba25003..206dc7b020cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -795,6 +795,18 @@ void platform_device_unregister(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_device_unregister);
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> 
> #ifdef do not belong in .c files if at all possible.
> 
> Why can't this be an acpi call instead?  Why does this have to be in the
> driver core?  Platform drivers shouldn't know anything about acpi, this
> feels really odd.
> 
> > +static inline void platform_set_dev_node(struct platform_device *pdev)
> 
> Also, it's not "platform_set", it is acpi-specifc, right?  Again, the
> ACPI core should handle this for its ACPI-platform devices, the driver
> core shouldn't care at all.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>

I agree with that. I will try to fix it in the ACPI code which call the platform function
soon.

thanks,

Jinhui Guo