On 10/13/18 05:51, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 21:53 -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.row...@sony.com>
>>
>> Multiple overlay fragments adding or deleting the same node is not
>> supported. Replace code comment of such, with check to detect the
>> attempt and fail the overlay apply.
>>
>> Devicetree unittest where multiple fragments added the same node was
>> added in the previous patch in the series. After applying this patch
>> the unittest messages will no longer include:
>>
>> Duplicate name in motor-1, renamed to "controller#1"
>> OF: overlay: of_overlay_apply() err=0
>> ### dt-test ### of_overlay_fdt_apply() expected -22, ret=0,
>> overlay_bad_add_dup_node
>> ### dt-test ### FAIL of_unittest_overlay_high_level():2419 Adding overlay
>> 'overlay_bad_add_dup_node' failed
>>
>> ...
>>
>> ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 210 passed, 1 failed
>>
>> but will instead include:
>>
>> OF: overlay: ERROR: multiple overlay fragments add and/or delete node
>> /testcase-data-2/substation@100/motor-1/controller
>>
>> ...
>>
>> ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 211 passed, 0 failed
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> []
>> @@ -523,6 +515,54 @@ static int build_changeset_symbols_node(struct
>> overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * check_changeset_dup_add_node() - changeset validation: duplicate add node
>> + * @ovcs: Overlay changeset
>> + *
>> + * Check changeset @ovcs->cset for multiple add node entries for the same
>> + * node.
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 on success, -ENOMEM if memory allocation failure, or -EINVAL if
>> + * invalid overlay in @ovcs->fragments[].
>> + */
>> +static int check_changeset_dup_add_node(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs)
>> +{
>> + struct of_changeset_entry *ce_1, *ce_2;
>> + char *fn_1, *fn_2;
>> + int name_match;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(ce_1, &ovcs->cset.entries, node) {
>> +
>> + if (ce_1->action == OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE ||
>> + ce_1->action == OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE) {
>> +
>> + ce_2 = ce_1;
>> + list_for_each_entry_continue(ce_2, &ovcs->cset.entries,
>> node) {
>> + if (ce_2->action == OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE ||
>> + ce_2->action == OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE) {
>> + /* inexpensive name compare */
>> + if (!of_node_cmp(ce_1->np->full_name,
>> + ce_2->np->full_name)) {
>
> A bit of odd indentation here.
> This line is normally aligned to the second ( on the line above.
Yes, thanks.
>
>> + /* expensive full path name
>> compare */
>> + fn_1 = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL,
>> "%pOF", ce_1->np);
>> + fn_2 = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL,
>> "%pOF", ce_2->np);
>> + name_match = !strcmp(fn_1,
>> fn_2);
>> + kfree(fn_1);
>> + kfree(fn_2);
>> + if (name_match) {
>> + pr_err("ERROR: multiple
>> overlay fragments add and/or delete node %pOF\n",
>> + ce_1->np);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Style trivia:
>
> Using inverted tests and continue would reduce indentation.
Yes, thanks.
-Frank
>
> list_for_each_entry(ce_1, &ovcs->cset.entries, node) {
> if (ce_1->action != OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE &&
> ce_1->action != OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE)
> continue;
>
> ce_2 = ce_1;
> list_for_each_entry_continue(ce_2, &ovcs->cset.entries, node) {
> if (ce_2->action != OF_RECONFIG_ATTACH_NODE &&
> ce_2->action != OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE)
> continue;
>
> /* inexpensive name compare */
> if (of_node_cmp(ce_1->np->full_name,
> ce_2->np->full_name))
> continue;
>
> /* expensive full path name compare */
> fn_1 = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%pOF", ce_1->np);
> fn_2 = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%pOF", ce_2->np);
> name_match = !strcmp(fn_1, fn_2);
> kfree(fn_1);
> kfree(fn_2);
> if (name_match) {
> pr_err("ERROR: multiple overlay fragments add
> and/or delete node %pOF\n",
> ce_1->np);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
> }
>
>
>
