Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 18:08:33 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        "K . Y . Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Don't bind the
 offer&rescind works to a specific CPU
Message-ID: <20200328170833.GA10153@andrea>
References: <20200325225505.23998-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20200325225505.23998-3-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <871rpf5hhm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <20200326154710.GA13711@andrea>
 <87sghv3u4a.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87sghv3u4a.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> In case we believe that OFFER -> RESCINF sequence is always ordered
> by the host AND we don't care about other offers in the queue the
> suggested locking is OK: we're guaranteed to process RESCIND after we
> finished processing OFFER for the same channel. However, waiting for
> 'offer_in_progress == 0' looks fishy so I'd suggest we at least add a
> comment explaining that the wait is only needed to serialize us with
> possible OFFER for the same channel - and nothing else. I'd personally
> still slightly prefer the algorythm I suggested as it guarantees we take
> channel_mutex with offer_in_progress == 0 -- even if there are no issues
> we can think of today (not strongly though).

Does it?  offer_in_progress is incremented without channel_mutex...

IAC, I have no objections to apply the changes you suggested.  To avoid
misunderstandings: vmbus_bus_suspend() presents a similar usage...  Are
you suggesting that I apply similar changes there?

Alternatively:  FWIW, the comment in vmbus_onoffer_rescind() does refer
to "The offer msg and the corresponding rescind msg...".  I am all ears
if you have any concrete suggestions to improve these comments.

Thanks,
  Andrea