Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] of: overlay: update phandle cache on overlay apply
 and remove
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
References: <1529251416-14814-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
 <CAL_JsqJdp16D4svB8Y7jurNVdHzVgz8_pkOKBA6mFyhXkqWi6w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1bb4ef5c-5813-fbea-9536-48b339c1e010@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:52:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJdp16D4svB8Y7jurNVdHzVgz8_pkOKBA6mFyhXkqWi6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/20/18 11:23, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 10:03 AM,  <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> A comment in the review of the patch adding the phandle cache said that
>> the cache would have to be updated when modules are applied and removed.
>> This patch implements the cache updates.
>>
>> Fixes: 0b3ce78e90fc ("of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()")
>> Reported-by: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>
>> Suggested-by: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Compiles for one configuration.
>> NOT boot tested.
>> Not run through my normal process to check for new warnings, etc.
> 
> I'm assuming you will resend a non-RFC version for me to apply.

Yes, I will.

> 
> I think it would be a bit better if callers didn't have to do free and
> populate themselves, but just made an invalidate call (like a normal
> cache) and re-populating the cache could happen on demand. Or if it
> was done as a single call, you could just copy the old entries to the
> new larger array. But maybe there would be a race condition in doing
> that? In any case, all that could be a subsequent patch.

Yes, the unspoken, underlying issue is a race condition.  I'll update
the commit comment to explain the race issues a little bit.  And maybe
add a code comment if I can be concise enough.

-Frank

> 
> Rob
>