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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:45:38 +0300 From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru> To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org> CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>, "ALSA Development Mailing List" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, <openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Khuong Dinh <khuong@...amperecomputing.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>, Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>, Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...ev.pl>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>, "William Breathitt Gray" <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>, Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>, "Mun Yew Tham" <mun.yew.tham@...el.com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, "Linux MMC List" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@...el.com>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>, <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, "Brian Norris" <computersforpeace@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: Rename platform_get_irq_optional() to platform_get_irq_silent() On 1/13/22 10:43 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > The subsystems regulator, clk and gpio have the concept of a dummy > resource. For regulator, clk and gpio there is a semantic difference > between the regular _get() function and the _get_optional() variant. > (One might return the dummy resource, the other won't. Unfortunately > which one implements which isn't the same for these three.) The > difference between platform_get_irq() and platform_get_irq_optional() is > only that the former might emit an error message and the later won't. > > To prevent people's expectations that there is a semantic difference > between these too, rename platform_get_irq_optional() to > platform_get_irq_silent() to make the actual difference more obvious. > > The #define for the old name can and should be removed once all patches > currently in flux still relying on platform_get_irq_optional() are > fixed. Hm... I'm afraid that with this #define they would never get fixed... :-) > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> > --- > Hello, > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 02:45:30PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:08:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> >>> This is all very unfortunate. In my eyes b) is the most sensible >>> sense, but the past showed that we don't agree here. (The most annoying >>> part of regulator_get is the warning that is emitted that regularily >>> makes customers ask what happens here and if this is fixable.) >> >> Fortunately it can be fixed, and it's safer to clearly specify things. >> The prints are there because when the description is wrong enough to >> cause things to blow up we can fail to boot or run messily and >> forgetting to describe some supplies (or typoing so they haven't done >> that) and people were having a hard time figuring out what might've >> happened. > > Yes, that's right. I sent a patch for such a warning in 2019 and pinged > occationally. Still waiting for it to be merged :-\ > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190625100412.11815-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de) > >>> I think at least c) is easy to resolve because >>> platform_get_irq_optional() isn't that old yet and mechanically >>> replacing it by platform_get_irq_silent() should be easy and safe. >>> And this is orthogonal to the discussion if -ENOXIO is a sensible return >>> value and if it's as easy as it could be to work with errors on irq >>> lookups. >> >> It'd certainly be good to name anything that doesn't correspond to one >> of the existing semantics for the API (!) something different rather >> than adding yet another potentially overloaded meaning. > > It seems we're (at least) three who agree about this. Here is a patch > fixing the name. I can't say I genrally agree with this patch... [...] > diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h > index 7c96f169d274..6d495f15f717 100644 > --- a/include/linux/platform_device.h > +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h > @@ -69,7 +69,14 @@ extern void __iomem * > devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(struct platform_device *pdev, > const char *name); > extern int platform_get_irq(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > -extern int platform_get_irq_optional(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > +extern int platform_get_irq_silent(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > + > +/* > + * platform_get_irq_optional was recently renamed to platform_get_irq_silent. > + * Fixup users to not break patches that were created before the rename. > + */ > +#define platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, index) platform_get_irq_silent(pdev, index) > + Yeah, why bother fixing if it compiles anyway? I think an inline wrapper with an indication to gcc that the function is deprecated (I just forgot how it should look) would be better instead... > extern int platform_irq_count(struct platform_device *); > extern int devm_platform_get_irqs_affinity(struct platform_device *dev, > struct irq_affinity *affd, [...] MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists