Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] watchdog: Move watchdog device creation to watchdog_dev.c

[Wim Van Sebroeck]

Hi All,

> On 12/07/2015 08:15 AM, Damien Riegel wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 11:51:41AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>The watchdog character device s currently created in watchdog_dev.c,
> >>and the watchdog device in watchdog_core.c. This results in
> >>cross-dependencies, as the device creation needs to know the watchdog
> >>character device number.
> >>
> >>On top of that, the watchdog character device is created before the
> >>watchdog device is created. This can result in race conditions if the
> >>watchdog device node is accessed before the watchdog device has been
> >>created.
> >>
> >>To solve the problem, move watchdog device creation into watchdog_dev.c,
> >>and create the watchdog device prior to creating its device node.
> >>Also move device class creation into watchdog_dev.c, since this is now
> >>the only place where the watchdog class is needed.
> >>
> >>Inspired by an earlier patch set from Damien Riegel.
> >>
> >>Cc: Damien Riegel <damien.riegel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >>Hi Damien,
> >>
> >>I think this approach would be a bit better. The watchdog device isn't
> >>really used in the watchdog core code, so it is better created in
> >>watchdog_dev.c. That also fits well with other pending changes, such as
> >>sysfs attribute support, and my attempts to move the ref/unref functions
> >>completely into the watchdog core. As a side effect, it also cleans up
> >>the error path in __watchdog_register_device().
> >>
> >>What do you think ?
> >
> >Hi Guenter,
> >
> >Like the idea, but I don't really get the separation. For instance, you
> >move watchdog_class in watchdog_dev.c but you keep watchdog_ida in
> >watchdog_core.c whereas it is only used for device creation/deletion.
> >
> The class is watchdog driver internal, and it is device related, so I think
> it made sense to move it to watchdog_dev.c. On top of that, it will be 
> needed
> there if/when we introduce sysfs attributes.
> 
> The watchdog id can be determined by obtaining an id using ida, or it can
> be provided through the watchdog alias. The operation to get it is not
> device related, and it is not straightforward to obtain it, so I thought
> it makes sense to keep the code in watchdog_core.c.
> 
> Of course a lot of it is personal preference.
> 

Let me go back to how I saw the design when I created the generic watchdog framework:
When using watchdog device drivers we need to be able to support the /dev/watchdog system.
I also foresaw that we should have a sysfs interface and I saw the future for watchdog devices that you should be able to choose between the 2 different systems. You should be able to use only the /dev/watchdog interfacing, but you should also be able to use both a sysfs interface and a /dev/watchdog interface and it should even be possible to have only a sysfs interface in certain embedded devices. So that's why I split the watchdog framework over 3 files: core code, the /dev/watchdog interfacing and the sysfs code. Since I want to have compiled code small enough when choosing either /Dev/watchdog or sysfs or both this sounded the most logical thing to do (Unless you have a single file full of #ifdef-ery that becomes unreadable).

So I do not agree to have sysfs code in watchdog_dev.c . It belongs in watchdog_sysfs.c imho. If someone has a better idea, I'll be glad to listen to it and see what the benefits are. But I want a clean system for excluding both /dev/ (current watchdog_dev.c) and/or sysfs (watchdog_sysfs.c) in the future. Off-course the current behaviour is to have the /dev/ interface and have the option to add sysfs attributes.

Kind regards,
Wim.

--
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/