Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753404AbaBLQjk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:39:40 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:50477 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752491AbaBLQjj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:39:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:40:55 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Daniel Vetter Cc: David Herrmann , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Dave Airlie , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] drm: provide device-refcount Message-ID: <20140212164055.GB22377@kroah.com> References: <1391004120-687-1-git-send-email-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> <1391004120-687-6-git-send-email-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> <20140212132541.GU17001@phenom.ffwll.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:26:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Herrmann wrote: > >>> +/** > >>> + * drm_dev_ref - Take reference of a DRM device > >>> + * @dev: device to take reference of or NULL > >>> + * > >>> + * This increases the ref-count of @dev by one. You *must* already own a > >>> + * reference when calling this. Use drm_dev_unref() to drop this reference > >>> + * again. > >>> + * > >>> + * This function never fails. However, this function does not provide *any* > >>> + * guarantee whether the device is alive or running. It only provides a > >>> + * reference to the object and the memory associated with it. > >>> + */ > >>> +void drm_dev_ref(struct drm_device *dev) > >>> +{ > >>> + if (dev) > >> > >> This check here (and below in the unref code) look funny. What's the > >> reason for it? Trying to grab/drop a ref on a NULL pointer sounds like a > >> pretty serious bug to me. This is in contrast to kfree(NULL) which imo > >> makes sense - freeing nothing is a legitimate operation imo. > > > > I added it mainly to simplify cleanup-code paths. You can then just > > call unref() and set it to NULL regardless whether you actually hold a > > reference or not. For ref() I don't really care but I think the > > NULL-test doesn't hurt either. > > > > I copied this behavior from get_device() and put_device(), btw. > > Similar to these functions, I think a lot more will go wrong if the > > NULL pointer is not intentional. Imo, ref-counting on a NULL object > > just means "no object", so it shouldn't do anything. > > My fear with this kind of magic is that someone accidentally exchanges > the pointer clearing to NULL (or assignement when grabbing a ref) with > the unref/ref call and then we have a very subtle bug at hand. If we > don't accept NULL objects the failure will be much more obvious. > > The entire kernel kobject stuff is very consistent about this, but I > couldn't find a reason for it - all the NULL checks predate git > history. Greg can you please shed some lights on best practice here > and whether my fears are justified given your experience with shoddy > drivers in general? Yes, the driver core does test for NULL here, as sometimes you are passing in a "parent" pointer, and don't really care if it is NULL or not, so just treating it as if you really do have a reference is usually fine. But, for a subsystem where you "know" you will not be doing anything as foolish as that, I'd not allow that :) So I'd recommend taking those checks out of the drm code. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/