| Message ID | 20230721094641.77189-2-frank.li@vivo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com> wrote: > > There are more than 700 calls to devm_request_threaded_irq method and > more than 1000 calls to devm_request_irq method. Most drivers only > request one interrupt resource, and these error messages are basically > the same. If error messages are printed everywhere, more than 2000 lines > of code can be saved by removing the msg in the driver. > > And tglx point out that: > > If we actually look at the call sites of > devm_request_threaded_irq() then the vast majority of them print more or > less lousy error messages. A quick grep/sed/awk/sort/uniq revealed > > 519 messages total (there are probably more) > > 352 unique messages > > 323 unique messages after lower casing > > Those 323 are mostly just variants of the same patterns with > slight modifications in formatting and information provided. > > 186 of these messages do not deliver any useful information, > e.g. "no irq", " > > The most useful one of all is: "could request wakeup irq: %d" > > So there is certainly an argument to be made that this particular > function should print a well formatted and informative error message. > > It's not a general allocator like kmalloc(). It's specialized and in the > vast majority of cases failing to request the interrupt causes the > device probe to fail. So having proper and consistent information why > the device cannot be used _is_ useful. > > So convert to use devm_request*_irq_probe() API, which ensure that all > error handling branches print error information. > > In this way, when this function fails, the upper-layer functions can > directly return an error code without missing debugging information. > Otherwise, the error message will be printed redundantly or missing. > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> > Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com> > Acked-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com> It is not clear to me what the purpose of sending these patches is. Because the devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() definition is not there in the current -rc kernels AFAICS, it looks like they are sent in order to collect tags from people. If so, there should be a cover letter making that clear. As it stands, it is also unclear how you want them to be merged. Moreover, sending the series without patch [01/22] to linux-pm has not been helpful. Thanks! > --- > drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c > index 195f3c5d0b38..a952804ff993 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c > @@ -512,9 +512,9 @@ static int sun8i_ths_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > * registered yet, we deffer the registration of the interrupt to > * the end. > */ > - ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, irq, NULL, > - sun8i_irq_thread, > - IRQF_ONESHOT, "ths", tmdev); > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq_probe(dev, irq, NULL, > + sun8i_irq_thread, > + IRQF_ONESHOT, "ths", tmdev, NULL); > if (ret) > return ret; > > -- > 2.39.0 >
Hi Rafael, > It is not clear to me what the purpose of sending these patches is. > > Because the devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() definition is not there > in the current -rc kernels AFAICS, it looks like they are sent in > order to collect tags from people. If so, there should be a cover > letter making that clear. > > As it stands, it is also unclear how you want them to be merged. > > Moreover, sending the series without patch [01/22] to linux-pm has not > been helpful. Could you please merge the entire series into the pm branch? Also, do I need to send a new version? MBR, Yangtao
Hi Rafael, > It is not clear to me what the purpose of sending these patches is. > > Because the devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() definition is not there > in the current -rc kernels AFAICS, it looks like they are sent in > order to collect tags from people. If so, there should be a cover > letter making that clear. > > As it stands, it is also unclear how you want them to be merged. > > Moreover, sending the series without patch [01/22] to linux-pm has not > been helpful. Could you please merge the entire series into the pm branch? Also, do I need to send a new version? MBR, Yangtao
On Wed, Aug 28 2024 at 21:21, Yangtao Li wrote: >> It is not clear to me what the purpose of sending these patches is. >> >> Because the devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() definition is not there >> in the current -rc kernels AFAICS, it looks like they are sent in >> order to collect tags from people. If so, there should be a cover >> letter making that clear. >> >> As it stands, it is also unclear how you want them to be merged. >> >> Moreover, sending the series without patch [01/22] to linux-pm has not >> been helpful. > > Could you please merge the entire series into the pm branch? > Also, do I need to send a new version? There are review comments in this thread which you have to address, no? Thanks, tglx
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c index 195f3c5d0b38..a952804ff993 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c @@ -512,9 +512,9 @@ static int sun8i_ths_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) * registered yet, we deffer the registration of the interrupt to * the end. */ - ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, irq, NULL, - sun8i_irq_thread, - IRQF_ONESHOT, "ths", tmdev); + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq_probe(dev, irq, NULL, + sun8i_irq_thread, + IRQF_ONESHOT, "ths", tmdev, NULL); if (ret) return ret;
There are more than 700 calls to devm_request_threaded_irq method and more than 1000 calls to devm_request_irq method. Most drivers only request one interrupt resource, and these error messages are basically the same. If error messages are printed everywhere, more than 2000 lines of code can be saved by removing the msg in the driver. And tglx point out that: If we actually look at the call sites of devm_request_threaded_irq() then the vast majority of them print more or less lousy error messages. A quick grep/sed/awk/sort/uniq revealed 519 messages total (there are probably more) 352 unique messages 323 unique messages after lower casing Those 323 are mostly just variants of the same patterns with slight modifications in formatting and information provided. 186 of these messages do not deliver any useful information, e.g. "no irq", " The most useful one of all is: "could request wakeup irq: %d" So there is certainly an argument to be made that this particular function should print a well formatted and informative error message. It's not a general allocator like kmalloc(). It's specialized and in the vast majority of cases failing to request the interrupt causes the device probe to fail. So having proper and consistent information why the device cannot be used _is_ useful. So convert to use devm_request*_irq_probe() API, which ensure that all error handling branches print error information. In this way, when this function fails, the upper-layer functions can directly return an error code without missing debugging information. Otherwise, the error message will be printed redundantly or missing. Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com> Acked-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com> --- drivers/thermal/sun8i_thermal.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)