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:   Wed, 29 Jan 2020 16:25:58 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] console: Introduce ->exit() callback
Message-ID: <20200129142558.GF32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200127114719.69114-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20200127114719.69114-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20200128051711.GB115889@google.com>
 <20200128094418.GY32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20200129134141.GA537@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200129134141.GA537@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:41:41PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/01/28 11:44), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > If the console was not registered (hence not enabled) is it still required
> > > to call ->exit()? Is there a requirement that ->exit() should handle such
> > > cases?
> > 
> > This is a good point. The ->exit() purpose is to keep balance for whatever
> > happened at ->setup().
> > 
> > But ->setup() is being called either when we have has_preferred == false or
> > when we got no matching we call it for all such consoles, till it returns an
> > error (can you elaborate the logic behind it?).
> 
> ->match() does alias matching and ->setup(). If alias matching failed,
> exact name match takes place. We don't call ->setup() for all consoles,
> but only for those that have exact name match:
> 
> 	if (strcmp(c->name, newcon->name) != 0)
> 		continue;
> 
> As to why we don't stop sooner in that loop - I need to to do some
> archaeology. We need to have CON_CONSDEV at proper place, which is
> IIRC the last matching console.
> 
> Pretty much every time we tried to change the logic we ended up
> reverting the changes.

I understand. Seems the ->setup() has to be idempotent. We can tell the same
for ->exit() in some comment.

Can you describe, btw, struct console in kernel doc format?
It will be very helpful!

> > In both cases we will get the console to have CON_ENABLED flag set.
> 
> And there are sneaky consoles that have CON_ENABLED before we even
> register them.

So, taking into consideration my comment to the previous patch, what would be
suggested guard here?

For a starter something like this?

  if ((console->flags & CON_ENABLED) && console->exit)
	console->exit(console);


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko