Re: [PATCH 0/16] New set of input patches

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thursday 27 January 2005 17:16, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:18:55PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:36:05 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > > 
> > > > OK. I'll go through them, and apply as appropriate. I still need to wrap
> > > > my mind around the start() and stop() methods and see the necessity. I
> > > > still think a variable in the serio struct, only accessed by the serio.c
> > > > core driver itself (and never by the port driver) that'd cause all
> > > > serio_interrupt() calls to be ignored until set in the asynchronous port
> > > > registration would be well enough.
> > > 
> > > I've read he start() and stop() code, and I came to the conclusion
> > > again that we don't need them as serio port driver methods. i8042 uses
> > > them to set the exists variable only and uses that variable _solely_ for
> > > the purpose of skipping calls to serio_interrupt(), serio_cleanup() and
> > > serio_unregister().
> > > 
> > > By instead checking a member of the serio struct in these functions, and
> > > doing nothing if not set, we achieve the same goal, without adding extra
> > > cruft to the interface, making it allowed to call these serio functions
> > > on a non-registered or half-registered serio struct, with the effect
> > > being defined to nothing.
> > > 
> > 
> > No, you can not peek into serio structure from a driver, not when it
> > was dynamically allocated and can be gone at any time. Please consider
> > the following screnario when shutting down 8042 when you have a MUX
> > with several ports:
> > 
> > The rough call sequence is:
> > i8042_exit
> >   serio_unregister_port
> >      driver->disconnect
> >         serio_close
> >            i8042->close
> >      free(serio)
> > 
> > We need to keep interrupts passed to serio core until serio_close is
> > completed so device properly ACKs/responds to cleanup commands.
> > Additionally, in i8042 close we do not free IRQ until last port is
> > unregistered nor we disable the port because we want to support
> > hotplugging. If interrupt comes after port was freed but before
> > serio_unregister_port has returned i8042_interrupt will call
> > serio_interrupt for port that was just free()ed. Special flag in serio
> > will not help because you need to know that port pointer is valid. You
> > could try pinning the port in memory buy taking a refernce but then
> > asynchronous unregister is not possible and it is needed in some
> > cases.
> > 
> > I think that having these 2 interface functions helps clearly define
> > these sequence points when port can/can not be used, simplifies logic
> > and alerts driver authors of this potential problem.
>  
> You're right. I forgot that serio isn't anymore tied to the driver and
> can cease to exist on its own asynchronously. However, I'm still not
> sure whether it's worth it. We might as well simply drop the unregister
> call in i8042_open for AUX completely and forget about asynchronous
> unregisters and use normal refcounting. As far as grep knows, it's the
> only user.

I am pretty sure I will need asynchronous unregister in some form when
I finish dynamic protocol switching in psmouse (those darned pass-through
ports!). Plus again, having these 2 methods will draw driver writers'
attention to the existence of this particular problem.

-- 
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/