[PATCH 3/6] env: Fix invalid env handling in env_init()

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:45:18PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 6/6/20 6:24 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 04:54:52PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 6/5/20 11:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>> On 6/5/20 9:07 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 02:01:08AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In case the env storage driver marks environment as ENV_INVALID, we must
> >>>>>> reset the $ret return value to -ENOENT to let the env init code reset the
> >>>>>> environment to the default one a bit further down.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  env/env.c | 3 +++
> >>>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/env/env.c b/env/env.c
> >>>>>> index dcc25c030b..024d36fdbe 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/env/env.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/env/env.c
> >>>>>> @@ -300,6 +300,9 @@ int env_init(void)
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>  		debug("%s: Environment %s init done (ret=%d)\n", __func__,
> >>>>>>  		      drv->name, ret);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +		if (gd->env_valid == ENV_INVALID)
> >>>>>> +			ret = -ENOENT;
> >>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>  	if (!prio)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the storage driver marking the environment as invalid but not
> >>>>> returning ENOENT valid?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, some are doing that.
> >>>
> >>> Why?  Is that correct or incorrect?  It doesn't seem like this is
> >>> something that should be inconsistent from storage driver to storage
> >>> driver and needs fixing.
> >>
> >> The default env driver is doing it, whether it's a workaround or correct
> >> behavior, I really don't know. Maybe Joe does ?
> >>
> >>>>> How does all of this work in the case of multiple configured storage
> >>>>> drivers?
> >>>>
> >>>> If the env is invalid, then we report it as invalid.
> >>>
> >>> Right.  And what change, if any, does your proposed change have in this
> >>> case?  Thanks!
> >>
> >> Before this patch, that check was missing and the result was random,
> >> depending on which env order you had.
> > 
> > So have you changed the behavior of multiple environments then?  Today
> > it's indeed link order based, which is not optimal but used.
> 
> Yes, I believe this patch makes it work as intended.

Which is what?  Since I believe it works as intended today.  If there's
some behavior change / correction here in this case you need to spell it
out in the commit message.  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20200608/0f248bbf/attachment.sig>