| Message ID | 20201130133129.1024662-5-djrscally@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:11:52PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: > > Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a > > currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems, > > so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function. > > > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> > > --- > > Changes since RFC v3: > > > > Patch introduced > > > > drivers/base/swnode.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c > > index 615a0c93e116..af7930b3679e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c > > @@ -700,14 +700,21 @@ int software_node_register_nodes(const struct software_node *nodes) > > int i; > > > > for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) { > > + if (nodes[i].parent) > > + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + goto err_unregister_nodes; > > + } > > + > > ret = software_node_register(&nodes[i]); > > - if (ret) { > > - software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); > > - return ret; > > - } > > + if (ret) > > + goto err_unregister_nodes; > > } > > > > return 0; > > I'd add a blank line here. > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> I spoke a bit too soon. Could you update the documentation of the function to explain this new requirement ? > > +err_unregister_nodes: > > + software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); > > + return ret; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_register_nodes); > > > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:35:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: ... > > for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) { > > + if (nodes[i].parent) > > + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + goto err_unregister_nodes; > > + } > > + > > Besides that can we pack these conditionals together? > > if (nodes[i].parent && !software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { For being it shorter you may use temporary variable: software_node *parent; parent = nodes[i].parent; if (parent && !software_node_to_swnode(parent)) {
Hi Laurent On 30/11/2020 16:12, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:11:52PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Thank you for the patch. >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: >>> Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a >>> currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems, >>> so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> Changes since RFC v3: >>> >>> Patch introduced >>> >>> drivers/base/swnode.c | 15 +++++++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c >>> index 615a0c93e116..af7930b3679e 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c >>> +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c >>> @@ -700,14 +700,21 @@ int software_node_register_nodes(const struct software_node *nodes) >>> int i; >>> >>> for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) { >>> + if (nodes[i].parent) >>> + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { >>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>> + goto err_unregister_nodes; >>> + } >>> + >>> ret = software_node_register(&nodes[i]); >>> - if (ret) { >>> - software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> + if (ret) >>> + goto err_unregister_nodes; >>> } >>> >>> return 0; >> I'd add a blank line here. >> >> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > I spoke a bit too soon. Could you update the documentation of the > function to explain this new requirement ? Oops - of course, will do >>> +err_unregister_nodes: >>> + software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); >>> + return ret; >>> } >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_register_nodes); >>> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Laurent Pinchart
diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c index 615a0c93e116..af7930b3679e 100644 --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c @@ -700,14 +700,21 @@ int software_node_register_nodes(const struct software_node *nodes) int i; for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) { + if (nodes[i].parent) + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto err_unregister_nodes; + } + ret = software_node_register(&nodes[i]); - if (ret) { - software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); - return ret; - } + if (ret) + goto err_unregister_nodes; } return 0; +err_unregister_nodes: + software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); + return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_register_nodes);
Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems, so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function. Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> --- Changes since RFC v3: Patch introduced drivers/base/swnode.c | 15 +++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)