lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> Hi Gerd,
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 09:50:14 EEST Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)
>> >
>> > Why do you start at 0x42 if you reserve the 0x40-0x4f range ?
>>
>> No particular strong reason, just that using 42 was less boring than
>> starting with 0x40.
>>
>> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST _IOW('u', 0x43, struct
>> >> udmabuf_create_list)
>> >
>> > Where's the documentation ? :-)
>>
>> Isn't it simple enough?
>
> No kernel UAPI is simple enough to get away without documenting it.

Simplest option would be to throw a bit of kerneldoc into the uapi
header, add Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst.
-Daniel

>
>> But, well, yes, I guess I can add some kerneldoc comments.
>>
>> >> +static int udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>> >> + struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
>> >> + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>> >
>> > Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?
>>
>> It should not. If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
>> thats why the WARN_ON.
>
> But you seem to consider that this condition that should never happen still
> has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth a WARN_ON(). I was
> wondering why this one in particular, and not other conditions that also can't
> happen and are not checked through the code.
>
>> >> + struct udmabuf *ubuf;
>> >>
>> >> + ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
>> >
>> > sizeof(*ubuf)
>>
>> Why? Should not make a difference ...
>
> Because the day we replace
>
> struct udmabuf *ubuf;
>
> with
>
> struct udmabuf_ext *ubuf;
>
> and forget to change the next line, we'll introduce a bug. That's why
> sizeof(variable) is preferred over sizeof(type). Another reason is that I can
> easily see that
>
> ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> is correct, while using sizeof(type) requires me to go and look up the
> declaration of the variable.
>
>> >> + memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
>> >> + if (!memfd)
>> >> + goto err_put_pages;
>> >> + if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
>> >> + goto err_put_pages;
>> >> + seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
>> >> + if (seals == -EINVAL ||
>> >> + (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
>> >> + (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
>> >> + goto err_put_pages;
>> >
>> > All these conditions will return -EINVAL. I'm not familiar with the memfd
>> > API, should some error conditions return a different error code to make
>> > them distinguishable by userspace ?
>>
>> Hmm, I guess EBADFD would be reasonable in case the file handle isn't a
>> memfd. Other suggestions?
>
> I'll let others comment on this as I don't feel qualified to pick proper error
> codes, not being familiar with the memfd API.
>
>> I'll prepare a fixup patch series addressing most of the other
>> review comments.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
>
>



--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-11 12:06    [W:0.093 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site