lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 1/5] driver core: Find an existing link between two devices
From
Date
Hi Rafael,

On 14/03/18 11:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:50:54 PM CET Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:23:34 PM CET Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vivek Gautam
>>>> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tomasz,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Vivek Gautam
>>>>>> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The lists managing the device-links can be traversed to
>>>>>>> find the link between two devices. The device_link_add() APIs
>>>>>>> does traverse these lists to check if there's already a link
>>>>>>> setup between the two devices.
>>>>>>> So, add a new APIs, device_link_find(), to find an existing
>>>>>>> device link between two devices - suppliers and consumers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering if this API would be useful for anything else that the
>>>>>> problem we're trying to solve with deleting links without storing them
>>>>>> anywhere. Perhaps a device_link_del_dev(consumer, supplier) would be a
>>>>>> better alternative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea, that sounds simpler i think. Will add this API instead of
>>>>> find_link(). Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps let's wait for a moment to see if there are other opinions. :)
>>>>
>>>> Rafael, Lucas, any thoughts?
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me what the device_link_del_dev(consumer, supplier) would do.
>>
>> It would delete a link between consumer and supplier.
>
> If there's one I suppose.
>
> I'm wondering if you are somehow trying to address the same problem as the
> device links reference counting patch from Lukas that has been queued up for 4.17
> already.

Not quite - the issue here is that we have one supplier with an
arbitrarily large number of consumers, and would prefer that supplier
not to have to spend a whole bunch of memory to store all the struct
device_link pointers for the sole reason of having something to give to
device_link_del() at the end, given that the device links code is
already keeping track of everything internally anyway.

The current API would permit doing this:

iommu_attach(dev) {
...
if (!device_link_add(dev, iommu, IOMMU_LINK_FLAGS))
return -ENODEV;
...
}

iommu_detach(dev) {
...
// Will return the existing link from earlier
link = device_link_add(dev, iommu, IOMMU_LINK_FLAGS);
device_link_del(link);
// Needed once refcounting is in place
//device_link_del(link);
...
}

but it looks so wacky and non-obvious that we'd like to encapsulate the
same behaviour into a more formal interface (my personal naming
preference would be device_link_remove(consumer, supplier)).

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 13:15    [W:0.064 / U:4.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site