[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 08/25] kernel: Add combined power-off+restart handler call chain API
- To: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:52:25 +0300
- Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joshua Thompson <funaho@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx>, Vincent Chen <deanbo422@xxxxxxxxx>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>, alankao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "K . C . Kuen-Chern Lin" <kclin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:52:54 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
29.11.2021 03:36, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:53:51AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 29.11.2021 00:17, Michał Mirosław пишет:
>>>> I'm having trouble with parsing this comment. Could you please try to
>>>> rephrase it? I don't see how you could check whether power-off handler
>>>> is available if you'll mix all handlers together.
>>> If notify_call_chain() would be fixed to return NOTIFY_OK if any call
>>> returned NOTIFY_OK, then this would be a clear way to gather the
>>> answer if any of the handlers will attempt the final action (reboot or
>>> power off).
>> Could you please show a code snippet that implements your suggestion?
>
> A rough idea is this:
>
> static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> unsigned long val, void *v,
> int nr_to_call, int *nr_calls)
> {
> - int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
> + int ret, result = NOTIFY_DONE;
> struct notifier_block *nb, *next_nb;
>
> nb = rcu_dereference_raw(*nl);
>
> while (nb && nr_to_call) {
> ...
> ret = nb->notifier_call(nb, val, v);
> +
> + /* Assuming NOTIFY_STOP-carrying return is always greater than
> non-stopping one. */
> + if (result < ret)
> + result = ret;
> ...
> }
> - return ret;
> + return result;
> }
>
> Then:
>
> bool prepare_reboot()
> {
> int ret = xx_notifier_call_chain(&shutdown_notifier, PREPARE_REBOOT,
> ...);
> return ret == NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> And the return value would signify whether the reboot will be attempted
> when calling the chain for the REBOOT action. (Analogously for powering off.)
If you started to execute call chain, then you began the power-off /
restart sequence, this is a point of no return. Sorry, I still don't
understand what you're trying to achieve.
The approach of having separate call chains is simple and intuitive, I
don't see reasons to change it.
|