[lm-sensors] lm-sensors 3.0.0-rc1 has been released!

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Henrique,

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:54:29 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > libsensors wouldn't cope with that anyway, so I'm glad you're not doing
> > it. libsensors probes for available features at initialization time.
> 
> We better document that in the kernel docs, then.

Send a patch?

>                                                    Because AFAIK sysfs
> interfaces are actually supposed to make those attributes come and go when
> possible.

According to what standard?

> > After that, the feature list doesn't change and applications can count
> > on it not changing. Of course, applications can run sensors_init()
> > again to get a fresher view of the hardware state, but this is pretty
> > expensive and not something that we want applications to do every other
> > second.
> 
> I've seen that cause endless problems in ACPI drivers (thinkpad-acpi has
> this issue on some deprecated codepaths).  It is really something to avoid
> if at all possible.

I don't understand you. What should be avoided exactly?

> > > (...)
> > > Drivers *do* often retry, if the hardware is busy.  But if they get a
> > > signal, what should they do, then?  AFAIK at least for stuff like sysfs, one
> > > is to return to userspace with EINTR to let userspace handle its signals,
> > > and resubmit the request if it wants to.
> > > 
> > > My sources of EINTR in thinkpad-acpi are from mutex_lock_interruptible.
> > 
> > I really need you to explain in details how and why EINTR is generated
> > and what we are supposed to do with it. I can't implement anything in
> > libsensors as long as I don't understand what we are dealing with.
> > Ideally, you would even be writing the libsensors patch, as you seem to
> > understand the needs much better than I do.
> 
> I am not completely sure I do understand EINTR, mind you.  But here's a
> typical path in thinkpad-acpi that can return EINTR as per the
> mutex_lock_interruptible documentation:
> 
> static ssize_t hotkey_mask_show(struct device *dev,
>                            struct device_attribute *attr,
>                            char *buf)
> {
>         int res;
> 
>         res = mutex_lock_interruptible(&hotkey_mutex);
>         if (res < 0)
>                 return res;
>         res = hotkey_mask_get();
>         mutex_unlock(&hotkey_mutex);
> 
>         return (res)?
>                 res : snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "0x%08x\n", hotkey_mask);
> }
> 
> It may return -EINTR from mutex_lock_interruptible, or -EIO from
> hotkey_mask_get (a function internal to thinkpad-acpi).
> 
> AFAIK, all cases I have seen for EINTR on the kernel allow one to do
> something like this in userspace:
> 
> rc = -EINTR;
> while (rc == -EINTR) {
> 	(check if any of our signal handlers have signalled that a signal
>          was receivied, e.g. sigterm)
> 	(kernel operation that can return EINTR);
> }
> 
> Because EINTR is something that is one-shot.  You get it when a signal is
> delivered, and that's it.  Many syscalls can even be told to restart
> themselves in case of an EINTR (but I don't know much about that, sorry).
> 
> Thinking a bit more about it, it looks to me like libsensors4 needs to be
> able to pass EINTR down the chain, and must let its user (the application)
> do the retries.  So, as you said, no retries within libsensors4... but we
> need an extra status code for EINTR.

Why are you using mutex_lock_interruptible() rather than just
mutex_lock() as all the other hwmon drivers do?

-- 
Jean Delvare