RE: [PATCH v3 4/8] platform/x86: wmi: create character devices when requested by drivers
Date: Tue Oct 03 2017 - 11:10:09 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:23 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>;
> LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>; quasisec@xxxxxxxxxx;
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] platform/x86: wmi: create character devices when
> requested by drivers
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:02:16PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > For WMI operations that are only Set or Query read or write sysfs
> > attributes created by WMI vendor drivers make sense.
> > For other WMI operations that are run on Method, there needs to be a
> > way to guarantee to userspace that the results from the method call
> > belong to the data request to the method call. Sysfs attributes don't
> > work well in this scenario because two userspace processes may be
> > competing at reading/writing an attribute and step on each other's
> > data.
> > When a WMI vendor driver declares a set of functions in a
> > file_operations object the WMI bus driver will create a character
> > device that maps to those file operations.
> > That character device will correspond to this path:
> > /dev/wmi/$driver
> > This policy is selected as one driver may map and use multiple
> > GUIDs and it would be better to only expose a single character
> > device.
> > The WMI vendor drivers will be responsible for managing access to
> > this character device and proper locking on it.
> > When a WMI vendor driver is unloaded the WMI bus driver will clean
> > up the character device.
> Ok, thanks to Darren, I've gone and dug these up while my boxes were
> building stable kernels...
> Why are you not just using the misc device interface here? Why do you
> need a whole new major and minor range? Why not just register misc
> devices dynamically as-needed? Should be much simpler and easier to
> maintain and reduce your code size a lot.
Thanks for this feedback. I'll look into this as an alternative.