Message-ID: <55C9EBD5.3090203@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:34:29 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
CC: peter@hurleysoftware.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        nsekhar@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, john.ogness@linutronix.de,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dma: add __must_check annotation for dmaengine_pause()
References: <1438977619-15488-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1438977619-15488-3-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20150811095852.GW11789@localhost> <20150811100617.GD7576@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150811100617.GD7576@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1831
Lines: 37

On 08/11/2015 12:06 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I think what people need to learn is that an API in the kernel which
> returns an int _can_ fail - it returns an int so it _can_ return an
> error code.  If it _can_ return an error code, there _will_ be
> implementations which _do_.
> 
> If you don't check the return code, either your code doesn't care whether
> the function was successful or not, or you're playing with fire.  This is
> a prime example of playing with fire.
> 
> Let's leave the crappy userspace laziness with regard to error checking
> to userspace, and keep it out of the kernel.
> 
> Yes, the DMA engine capabilities may not be sufficient to describe every
> detail of DMA engines, but that's absolutely no reason to skimp on error
> checking.  Had there been some kind of error checking at the site, this
> problem would have been spotted before the 8250-omap driver was merged.

Let me disable RX-DMA in 8250-omap code and push that stable. Then we
won't need a special annotation for pause support because it remains
off and is currently about one user. I browsed each driver in
drivers/dma each one which does support pause supports it and all of
them implement it unconditionally (ipu_idmac grabs a mutex first but
this is another story).
Adding error checking to 8250-omap like I have it in #1 and disabling
RX-DMA in case pause fails looks be reasonable since there is nothing
else that can be done I guess.
Once we have the missing piece in omap-dma the RX-DMA can be enabled in
8250-omap.
Does this sound like a plan we can agree on?

Sebastian
--
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/