lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] base: core: Remove WARN_ON from link dependencies check
2018-07-12 10:55 GMT+02:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:06:23AM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> In some cases the link between between customer and supplier
>> already exist. Do not warn about already existing dependencies
>> because device_link_add() take care of this case.
>
> Why would a link already exist that is asked to be created again? What
> code path causes this?

It could happen that the link exist because a device use it parent as supplier.
That case has been describe by Marek in this thread (I forgot to add
it in the commit message, sorry):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/9/356

>
>>
>> Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/core.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>> index df3e1a44707a..fcdc17f0f349 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static int device_is_dependent(struct device *dev, void *target)
>> struct device_link *link;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (WARN_ON(dev == target))
>> + if (dev == target)
>> return 1;
>>
>> ret = device_for_each_child(dev, target, device_is_dependent);
>> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int device_is_dependent(struct device *dev, void *target)
>> return ret;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(link, &dev->links.consumers, s_node) {
>> - if (WARN_ON(link->consumer == target))
>> + if (link->consumer == target)
>> return 1;
>
> Both of these WARN_ON are for valid code? That feels really odd to me,
> I need more explanation here please.

The documentation of the function is clear about return values:
"Check if @target depends on @dev or any device dependent on it (its
child or ts consumer etc). Return 1 if that is the case or 0
otherwise."
so, for me, not need to warn user about something that is expected.

Benjamin
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-15 22:05    [W:0.077 / U:8.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site