lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 07/17] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and out-of-order messages
Date
On 19.07.21 11:14, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:36:03PM +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
>> On 12.07.21 16:18, Cristian Marussi wrote:

[snip]

>>> @@ -608,6 +755,7 @@ static int do_xfer(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>>> xfer->hdr.protocol_id, xfer->hdr.seq,
>>> xfer->hdr.poll_completion);
>>> + xfer->state = SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK;
>>
>> To be completely safe, this assignment could also be protected by the
>> xfer->lock.
>>
>
> In fact this would be true being xfer->lock meant to protect the state but it
> seemed to me unnecessary here given that this is a brand new xfer with a
> brand new (monotonic) seq number so that any possibly late-received msg will
> carry an old stale seq number certainly different from this such that cannot be
> possibly mapped to this same xfer. (but just discarded on xfer lookup in
> xfer_command_acquire)
>
> The issue indeed could still exist only for do_xfer loops (as you pointed out
> already early on) where the seq_num is used, but in that case on a timeout we
> would have already bailed out of the loop and reported an error so any timed-out
> late received response would have been anyway discarded; so at the end I thought
> I could avoid spinlocking here.
>
> Thanks,
> Cristian
>

I mostly meant to refer to the possibility of a very fast response not
seeing this assignment, since the next line is

> ret = info->desc->ops->send_message(cinfo, xfer);

and during that a regular scmi_rx_callback(), reading xfer->state, can
already arrive. But maybe this is too theoretical.

Best regards,

Peter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-22 19:14    [W:0.093 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site