MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211218130014.4037640-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <20211218130014.4037640-3-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <CAPDyKFrLTsUxG8JHdK33h2BT8pxeHk6kiU-4uGrvxUhcQKg3Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8fcc0ef8-b0c7-da73-434f-31c88896aed5@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <8fcc0ef8-b0c7-da73-434f-31c88896aed5@linaro.org>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:54:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqzxnfh0kow5mzoApFMQpKOAv=e1b7Cy9H-iEh99Wmagw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] powercap/drivers/dtpm: Add hierarchy creation
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, lukasz.luba@arm.com, robh@kernel.org,
        heiko@sntech.de, arnd@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

[...]

> >> +static int dtpm_for_each_child(const struct dtpm_node *hierarchy,
> >> +                              const struct dtpm_node *it, struct dtpm *parent)
> >> +{
> >> +       struct dtpm *dtpm;
> >> +       int i, ret;
> >> +
> >> +       for (i = 0; hierarchy[i].name; i++) {
> >> +
> >> +               if (hierarchy[i].parent != it)
> >> +                       continue;
> >> +
> >> +               dtpm = dtpm_node_callback[hierarchy[i].type](&hierarchy[i], parent);
> >> +               if (!dtpm || IS_ERR(dtpm))
> >> +                       continue;
> >> +
> >> +               ret = dtpm_for_each_child(hierarchy, &hierarchy[i], dtpm);
> >
> > Why do you need to recursively call dtpm_for_each_child() here?
> >
> > Is there a restriction on how the dtpm core code manages adding
> > children/parents?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The recursive call is needed given the structure of the tree in an array
> in order to connect with the parent.

Right, I believe I understand what you are trying to do here, but I am
not sure if this is the best approach to do this. Maybe it is.

The problem is that we are also allocating memory for a dtpm and we
call dtpm_register() on it in this execution path - and this memory
doesn't get freed up nor unregistered, if any of the later recursive
calls to dtpm_for_each_child() fails.

The point is, it looks like it can get rather messy with the recursive
calls to cope with the error path. Maybe it's easier to store the
allocated dtpms in a list somewhere and use this to also find a
reference of a parent?

Later on, when we may decide to implement "dtpm_destroy_hierarchy()"
(or whatever we would call such interface), you probably need a list
of the allocated dtpms anyway, don't you think?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe