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;
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:26:15 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libnvdimm: Clarify nd_pfn_init() flow
Message-ID: <20190122002615.GB5855@richard>
Reply-To: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
References: <154785884329.2202034.3295476681016958230.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <154785884329.2202034.3295476681016958230.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
>implications to memory allocation.
>
>Clarify this situation to help anyone that reads through this code in
>the future.
>
>Reported-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
>Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>---
> drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c |    5 +++++
> drivers/nvdimm/dax_devs.c |    5 +++++
> drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c
>index 795ad4ff35ca..e0a6f2491e57 100644
>--- a/drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c
>+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c
>@@ -354,6 +354,11 @@ int nd_btt_probe(struct device *dev, struct nd_namespace_common *ndns)
> 		put_device(btt_dev);
> 	}
> 
>+	/*
>+	 * Successful probe indicates to the caller that an nd_btt
>+	 * personality device has been registered and the caller can
>+	 * fail the probe of the baseline namespace device.
>+	 */
> 	return rc;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(nd_btt_probe);
>diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dax_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dax_devs.c
>index 0453f49dc708..65010d955fa7 100644
>--- a/drivers/nvdimm/dax_devs.c
>+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dax_devs.c
>@@ -136,6 +136,11 @@ int nd_dax_probe(struct device *dev, struct nd_namespace_common *ndns)
> 	} else
> 		__nd_device_register(dax_dev);
> 
>+	/*
>+	 * Successful probe indicates to the caller that a device-dax
>+	 * personality device has been registered and the caller can
>+	 * fail the probe of the baseline namespace device.
>+	 */
> 	return rc;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(nd_dax_probe);
>diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
>index 6f22272e8d80..a8783b5a76ba 100644
>--- a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
>+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
>@@ -576,6 +576,11 @@ int nd_pfn_probe(struct device *dev, struct nd_namespace_common *ndns)
> 	} else
> 		__nd_device_register(pfn_dev);
> 
>+	/*
>+	 * Successful probe indicates to the caller that an nd_pfn
>+	 * personality device has been registered and the caller can
>+	 * fail the probe of the baseline namespace device.
>+	 */
> 	return rc;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(nd_pfn_probe);
>@@ -706,6 +711,22 @@ static int nd_pfn_init(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn)
> 		sig = DAX_SIG;
> 	else
> 		sig = PFN_SIG;
>+
>+	/*
>+	 * Check for an existing 'pfn' superblock before writing a new
>+	 * one. The intended flow is that on the first probe of an
>+	 * nd_{pfn,dax} device the superblock is calculated and written
>+	 * to the namespace. In this case nd_pfn_validate() returns
>+	 * -ENODEV because no valid superblock exists currently.

As you replied in following mail:

3/ If present, nd_pfn_validate() returns 0 and nd_dax_probe()
registers the dax0.1 device (this is a libnvdimm 'personality device).

So at this point, nd_pfn_validate() return 0 or -ENODEV?

>+	 *
>+	 * On subsequent probes nd_pfn_validate() will find a valid
>+	 * superblock and return 0.
>+	 *
>+	 * If an assumption of the superblock has been violated, like a
>+	 * change to the physical alignment of the namespace,
>+	 * nd_pfn_validate() will return an error other than -ENODEV to
>+	 * fail probing.
>+	 */
> 	rc = nd_pfn_validate(nd_pfn, sig);
> 	if (rc != -ENODEV)
> 		return rc;

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me