Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation | From | Tadeusz Struk <> | Date | Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:21:14 -0700 |
| |
On 08/10/2018 10:43 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> +static struct workqueue_struct *tpm_dev_wq; > A naming contradiction with tpm_common_read() and tpm_common_write(). To > sort that up I would suggest adding a commit to the patch set that > renames these functions as tpm_dev_common_read() and > tpm_dev_common_write() and use the name tpm_common_dev_wq here. >
Currently we have: tpm_open(), tpm_write(), tpm_release() in tpm-dev.c tpmrm_open(), tpmrm_read(), tpmrm_write(), tpmrm_release() in tpmrm-dev.c tpm_common_open(), tpm_common_read(), tpm_common_write(), tpm_common_release() in tpm-dev-common.c
I think that's pretty consistent. Do you want me to rename all of them to tpm_dev_*()? I don't see any value in doing this. What about if I just rename: tpm_dev_wq_lock to tpm_common_wq_lock, and tpm_dev_wq to tpm_common_wq?
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(tpm_dev_wq_lock); > This is an unacceptable way to do it, Rather add: > > int __init tpm_dev_common_init(void) > { > tpm_dev_common_wq = alloc_workqueue("tpm_dev_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0); > if (!tpm_dev_common_wq) > return -ENOMEM; > > return 0; > } > > and call this in the driver initialization. > That was the way it was implemented in v1 https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10442125/
See: static int __init tpm_dev_common_init(void)
and the feedback I got from Jason was:
"I wonder if it is worth creating this when the first file is opened.. Lots of systems have TPMs but few use the userspace.."
so I changed this to allocate the WQ on first open. I think it makes sense, but I leave it to you to decide.
Tadeusz, -- Tadeusz
| |