Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:11:50 +0100
From: Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>, Alex Ng <alexng@microsoft.com>,
        Cathy Avery <cavery@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drivers: hv: vmbus: handle various crash scenarios
Message-ID: <20160318161150.GB1800@potion.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1458304404-8347-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20160318152037.GK20310@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <87d1qr3hq6.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87d1qr3hq6.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1425
Lines: 54

2016-03-18 16:53+0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
> Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com> writes:
>> 2016-03-18 13:33+0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
>>> @@ -530,9 +542,17 @@ static void vmbus_wait_for_unload(void)
>>
>> (I'm not a huge fan of the unloaded variable; what about remembering the
>>  header/msgtype here ...
>>
>>>  			unloaded = true;
>>>  
>>>  		vmbus_signal_eom(msg);
>>
>>  and checking its value here?)
>>
> 
> Sure, but we'll have to use a variable for that ... why would it be
> better than 'unloaded'?

It's easier to understand IMO,

  x = mem       |  x = mem
  if *x == sth  |  z = *x
    u = true    |
  eoi()         |  eoi()
  if u          |  if z == sth
    break       |   break

And you can replace msg with the new variable,

 z = *mem
 eoi()
 if z == sth
   break

>> Can't this be NULL?
> 
> It can't, we allocate it from hv_synic_alloc() (and we don't support cpu
> onlining/offlining on WS2012R2+).

Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>

Thanks.

>>> +		msg = (struct hv_message *)page_addr + VMBUS_MESSAGE_SINT;
>>> +		msg->header.message_type = HVMSG_NONE;
>>>  	}
>>
>> (And, this block belongs to a separate function. ;])
> 
> I thought about moving it to hv_crash_handler() but then I decided to
> leave it here as the need for this fixup is rather an artifact of how we
> recieve the message. But I'm flexible here)

Ok, clearing all VCPUs made me think that it would be generally useful.