On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 06:05:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 3:12 AM Kent Gibson <warthog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > > +static bool padding_not_zeroed(__u32 *padding, int pad_size)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i, sum = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < pad_size; i++)
> > > > + sum |= padding[i];
> > > > +
> > > > + return sum;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Reimplementation of memchr_inv() ?
> > >
> >
> > I was hoping to find an existing function, surely checking a region is
> > zeroed is a common thing, right?, so this was a place holder as much
> > as anything. Not sure memchr_inv fits the bill, but I'll give it a
> > try...
> >
>
> If you don't find an appropriate function: please put your new
> implementation in lib/ so that others may reuse it.
>
Changed to memchr_inv.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > +static u64 gpioline_config_flags(struct gpioline_config *lc, int
> > > > line_idx)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = lc->num_attrs - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > >
> > > Much better to read is
> > >
> > > unsigned int i = lc->num_attrs;
> > >
> > > while (i--) {
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Really? I find that the post-decrement in the while makes determining the
> > bounds of the loop more confusing.
> >
>
> Agreed, Andy: this is too much nit-picking. :)
>
I was actually hoping for some feedback on the direction of that loop,
as it relates to the handling of multiple instances of the same
attribute associated with a given line.
The reverse loop here implements a last in wins policy, but I'm now
thinking the kernel should be encouraging userspace to only associate a
given attribute with a line once, and that a first in wins would help do
that - as additional associations would be ignored.
Alternatively, the kernel should enforce that an attribute can only be
associated once, but that would require adding more request validation.
> [snip]
>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > + struct gpio_desc *desc = gpiochip_get_desc(gdev->chip,
> > > > offset);
> > >
> > > I prefer to see this split, but it's minor.
> > >
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(desc);
> > > > + goto out_free_line;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > + dev_dbg(&gdev->dev, "registered chardev handle for line
> > > > %d\n",
> > > > + offset);
> > >
> > > Perhaps tracepoint / event?
> > >
> >
> > Again, a cut-and-paste from V1, and I have no experience with
> > tracepoints or events, so I have no opinion on that.
> >
> > So, yeah - perhaps?
> >
>
> I think it's a good idea to add some proper instrumentation this time
> other than much less reliable logs. Can you take a look at
> include/trace/events/gpio.h? Adding new GPIO trace events should be
> pretty straightforward by copy-pasti... drawing inspiration from
> existing ones.
>
You only want tracepoints to replace those dev_dbg()s, so when a line
is requested? What about the release? Any other points?
Cheers,
Kent.
