On 6/16/2016 4:43 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/16/2016 12:13 AM, Rhyland Klein wrote: >> power_supply_get_property() should ideally return -EAGAIN if it is >> called while the power_supply is being registered. There was no way >> previously to determine if use_cnt == 0 meant that the power_supply >> wasn't fully registered yet, or if it had already been unregistered. >> >> Add a new boolean to the power_supply struct to simply show if >> registration is completed. Lastly, modify the check in >> power_supply_show_property() to also ignore -EAGAIN when so it >> doesn't complain about not returning the property. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rkl...@nvidia.com> >> --- >> v2: >> - Modify power_supply_show_property() to not complain if it >> sees a return value of -EAGAIN after calling >> power_supply_get_property(). >> >> drivers/power/power_supply_core.c | 6 +++++- >> drivers/power/power_supply_sysfs.c | 2 +- >> include/linux/power_supply.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > I don't like it for two reasons: > 1. There is still a short window when the information will be > inaccurate. See comment below. > > 2. Although the code is not very complicated but it adds another field > and some checks just for differentiating EAGAIN/ENODEV. It is > unnecessary complexity. > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c >> b/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c >> index b13cd074c52a..a39a47672979 100644 >> --- a/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c >> @@ -491,8 +491,11 @@ int power_supply_get_property(struct power_supply *psy, >> enum power_supply_property psp, >> union power_supply_propval *val) >> { >> - if (atomic_read(&psy->use_cnt) <= 0) >> + if (atomic_read(&psy->use_cnt) <= 0) { >> + if (!psy->initialized) >> + return -EAGAIN; >> return -ENODEV; >> + } >> >> return psy->desc->get_property(psy, psp, val); >> } >> @@ -775,6 +778,7 @@ __power_supply_register(struct device *parent, >> if (rc) >> goto create_triggers_failed; >> >> + psy->initialized = true; > > If someone calls power_supply_get_property() here, then ENODEV will be > returned which is wrong. > > The problem is not solved entirely... I am not convinced that introduced > complexity is worth fixing it. >
Right now, without this patch, this causes the thermal function "update_temperature" in: thermal_zone_device_register-> thermal_zone_device_update-> update_temperature (->thermal_zone_get_temp() from the original stack) to print a warning as it sees ret != -EAGAIN. This causes a warning "failed to read out thermal zone". I think the idea there is if anything other than "try again" it complains. While this doesn't cause functional problems, I do think avoid the warning is worth while. I think that there is an onus on the power_supply code to be accurate in its return codes, and EAGAIN is the correct one we should be returning. I don't see how someone would call power_supply_get_property, but I agree there is the possibility that if someone did call there, that it could return the wrong value. We could wrap the setting of initialized and use_cnt inside a mutex, which should prevent anyone calling anything in between if we wanted to completely plug that hole. I am not fond of the idea of adding a struct member for such a small, specific case, but as we found before, I don't think there is another way to differentiate otherwise. -rhyland -- nvpublic