On Wed, 04 Sep 2024, Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sima, > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 07:05:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: >> > The i915 driver generates sysfs entries for each engine of the >> > GPU in /sys/class/drm/cardX/engines/. >> > >> > The process is straightforward: we loop over the UABI engines and >> > for each one, we: >> > >> > - Create the object. >> > - Create basic files. >> > - If the engine supports timeslicing, create timeslice duration files. >> > - If the engine supports preemption, create preemption-related files. >> > - Create default value files. >> > >> > Currently, if any of these steps fail, the process stops, and no >> > further sysfs files are created. >> > >> > However, it's not necessary to stop the process on failure. >> > Instead, we can continue creating the remaining sysfs files for >> > the other engines. Even if some files fail to be created, the >> > list of engines can still be retrieved by querying i915. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com> >> >> Uh, sysfs is uapi. Either we need it, and it _must_ be there, or it's not >> needed, and we should delete those files probably. >> >> This is different from debugfs, where failures are consistently ignored >> because that's the conscious design choice Greg made and wants supported. >> Because debugfs is optional. >> >> So please make sure we correctly fail driver load if these don't register. >> Even better would be if sysfs files are registered atomically as attribute >> blocks, but that's an entire different can of worms. But that would really >> clean up this code and essentially put any failure handling onto core >> driver model and sysfs code. > > This comment came after I merged the patch. So far, we have been > keeping the driver going even if sysfs fails to create, with the > idea of "if there is something wrong let it go as far as it can > and fail on its own". > > This change is just setting the behavior to what the rest of the > interfaces are doing, so that either we change them all to fail > the driver's probe or we have them behaving consistently as they > are. > > Tvrtko, Chris, Rodrigo any opinion from your side? Shall we bail > out as Sima is suggesting?
Are there any causes for sysfs creation errors that would be acceptable to ignore? I didn't see any examples. Or is this just speculative? IMO fail fast and loud. We get enough bug reports where there's some big backtrace splash copy-pasted on the bug, but the root cause happened much earlier and was ignored. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
