Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 07:14:17 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com" 
        <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "fred.oh@...ux.intel.com" <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support



> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:56 AM
> 
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:56:01AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 3:20 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/7/20 4:22 PM, Ertman, David M wrote:
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:59 PM
> > > >> To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@...el.com>; Parav Pandit
> > > >> <parav@...dia.com>; Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> > > >> Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org; parav@...lanox.com;
> > > >> tiwai@...e.de; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> > > >> ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com;
> > > >> fred.oh@...ux.intel.com; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org;
> > > >> dledford@...hat.com; broonie@...nel.org; Jason Gunthorpe
> > > >> <jgg@...dia.com>; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; kuba@...nel.org;
> > > >> Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@...el.com>; Saleem, Shiraz
> > > >> <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net; Patil, Kiran
> > > >> <kiran.patil@...el.com>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Below is most simple, intuitive and matching with core APIs for
> > > >>>> name and design pattern wise.
> > > >>>> init()
> > > >>>> {
> > > >>>> 	err = ancillary_device_initialize();
> > > >>>> 	if (err)
> > > >>>> 		return ret;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 	err = ancillary_device_add();
> > > >>>> 	if (ret)
> > > >>>> 		goto err_unwind;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 	err = some_foo();
> > > >>>> 	if (err)
> > > >>>> 		goto err_foo;
> > > >>>> 	return 0;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> err_foo:
> > > >>>> 	ancillary_device_del(adev);
> > > >>>> err_unwind:
> > > >>>> 	ancillary_device_put(adev->dev);
> > > >>>> 	return err;
> > > >>>> }
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> cleanup()
> > > >>>> {
> > > >>>> 	ancillary_device_de(adev);
> > > >>>> 	ancillary_device_put(adev);
> > > >>>> 	/* It is common to have a one wrapper for this as
> > > >>>> ancillary_device_unregister().
> > > >>>> 	 * This will match with core device_unregister() that has
> > > >>>> precise documentation.
> > > >>>> 	 * but given fact that init() code need proper error
> > > >>>> unwinding, like above,
> > > >>>> 	 * it make sense to have two APIs, and no need to export
> > > >>>> another symbol for unregister().
> > > >>>> 	 * This pattern is very easy to audit and code.
> > > >>>> 	 */
> > > >>>> }
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I like this flow +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But ... since the init() function is performing both device_init
> > > >>> and device_add - it should probably be called
> > > >>> ancillary_device_register, and we are back to a single exported
> > > >>> API for both register and unregister.
> > > >>
> > > >> Kind reminder that we introduced the two functions to allow the
> > > >> caller to know if it needed to free memory when initialize()
> > > >> fails, and it didn't need to free memory when add() failed since
> > > >> put_device() takes care of it. If you have a single init()
> > > >> function it's impossible to know which behavior to select on error.
> > > >>
> > > >> I also have a case with SoundWire where it's nice to first
> > > >> initialize, then set some data and then add.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The flow as outlined by Parav above does an initialize as the
> > > > first step, so every error path out of the function has to do a
> > > > put_device(), so you would never need to manually free the memory
> > > > in
> > > the setup function.
> > > > It would be freed in the release call.
> > >
> > > err = ancillary_device_initialize(); if (err)
> > > 	return ret;
> > >
> > > where is the put_device() here? if the release function does any
> > > sort of kfree, then you'd need to do it manually in this case.
> > Since device_initialize() failed, put_device() cannot be done here.
> > So yes, pseudo code should have shown, if (err) {
> > 	kfree(adev);
> > 	return err;
> > }
> >
> > If we just want to follow register(), unregister() pattern,
> >
> > Than,
> >
> > ancillar_device_register() should be,
> >
> > /**
> >  * ancillar_device_register() - register an ancillary device
> >  * NOTE: __never directly free @adev after calling this function, even
> > if it returned
> >  * an error. Always use ancillary_device_put() to give up the reference
> initialized by this function.
> >  * This note matches with the core and caller knows exactly what to be
> done.
> >  */
> > ancillary_device_register()
> > {
> > 	device_initialize(&adev->dev);
> > 	if (!dev->parent || !adev->name)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	if (!dev->release && !(dev->type && dev->type->release)) {
> > 		/* core is already capable and throws the warning when
> release callback is not set.
> > 		 * It is done at drivers/base/core.c:1798.
> > 		 * For NULL release it says, "does not have a release()
> function, it is broken and must be fixed"
> > 		 */
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	}
> > 	err = dev_set_name(adev...);
> > 	if (err) {
> > 		/* kobject_release() -> kobject_cleanup() are capable to
> detect if name is set/ not set
> > 		  * and free the const if it was set.
> > 		  */
> > 		return err;
> > 	}
> > 	err = device_add(&adev->dev);
> > 	If (err)
> > 		return err;
> > }
> >
> > Caller code:
> > init()
> > {
> > 	adev = kzalloc(sizeof(*foo_adev)..);
> > 	if (!adev)
> > 		return -ENOMEM;
> > 	err = ancillary_device_register(&adev);
> > 	if (err)
> > 		goto err;
> >
> > err:
> > 	ancillary_device_put(&adev);
> > 	return err;
> > }
> >
> > cleanup()
> > {
> > 	ancillary_device_unregister(&adev);
> > }
> >
> > Above pattern is fine too matching the core.
> >
> > If I understand Leon correctly, he prefers simple register(), unregister()
> pattern.
> > If, so it should be explicit register(), unregister() API.
> 
> This is my summary
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20201008052137.GA13580@unreal
> The API should be symmetric.
> 

I disagree to your below point.
> 1. You are not providing driver/core API but simplification and obfuscation
> of basic primitives and structures. This is new layer. There is no room for
> a claim that we must to follow internal API.
If ancillary bus has
ancillary_device_add(), it cannot do device_initialize() and device_add() in both.

I provided two examples and what really matters is a given patchset uses (need to use) which pattern,
initialize() + add(), or register() + unregister().

As we all know that API is not added for future. It is the future patch extends it.
So lets wait for Pierre to reply if soundwire can follow register(), unregister() sequence.
This way same APIs can service both use-cases.

Regarding,
> 3. You can't "ask" from users to call internal calls (put_device) over internal
> fields in ancillary_device.
In that case if should be ancillary_device_put() ancillary_device_release().

Or we should follow the patten of ib_alloc_device [1],
ancillary_device_alloc()
    -> kzalloc(adev + dev) with compile time assert check like rdma and vdpa subsystem.
    ->device_initialize()
ancillary_device_add()

ancillar_device_de() <- balances with add
ancillary_device_dealloc() <-- balances with device_alloc(), which does the put_device() + free the memory allocated in alloc().

This approach of [1] also eliminates exposing adev.dev.release = <drivers_release_method_to_free_adev> in drivers.
And container_of() benefit also continues..

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc8/source/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h#L2791

Powered by blists - more mailing lists