Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:32:29 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Jie Deng <jie.deng@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, wsa@kernel.org,
        jasowang@redhat.com, wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, conghui.chen@intel.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, kblaiech@mellanox.com,
        jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru,
        rppt@kernel.org, loic.poulain@linaro.org, tali.perry1@gmail.com,
        u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        yu1.wang@intel.com, shuo.a.liu@intel.com, stefanha@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver
Message-ID: <20210324040229.45gxaqfkfqjwleed@vireshk-i7>
References: <226a8d5663b7bb6f5d06ede7701eedb18d1bafa1.1616493817.git.jie.deng@intel.com>
 <20210323090108.ygx76exdgzudeeqi@vireshk-i7>
 <20210323093839.n7cq7f5poebqdwit@vireshk-i7>
 <5a415dbe-8e3b-2731-cc52-19aeadda1a17@intel.com>
 <20210324035225.skkllxexjl65gs6x@vireshk-i7>
 <70a2d0f7-ac48-b477-8368-7ef55696bff1@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70a2d0f7-ac48-b477-8368-7ef55696bff1@intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 24-03-21, 12:00, Jie Deng wrote:
> 
> On 2021/3/24 11:52, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 24-03-21, 08:53, Jie Deng wrote:
> > > On 2021/3/23 17:38, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > On 23-03-21, 14:31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > On 23-03-21, 22:19, Jie Deng wrote:
> > > > > > +static int virtio_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	struct virtio_i2c *vi = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
> > > > > > +	struct virtqueue *vq = vi->vq;
> > > > > > +	struct virtio_i2c_req *reqs;
> > > > > > +	unsigned long time_left;
> > > > > > +	int ret, nr;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	reqs = kcalloc(num, sizeof(*reqs), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > +	if (!reqs)
> > > > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	mutex_lock(&vi->lock);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	ret = virtio_i2c_send_reqs(vq, reqs, msgs, num);
> > > > > > +	if (ret == 0)
> > > > > > +		goto err_unlock_free;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	nr = ret;
> > > > > > +	reinit_completion(&vi->completion);
> > > > > I think I may have found a possible bug here. This reinit_completion() must
> > > > > happen before we call virtio_i2c_send_reqs(). It is certainly possible (surely
> > > > > in corner cases) that virtio_i2c_msg_done() may get called right after
> > > > > virtio_i2c_send_reqs() and before we were able to call reinit_completion(). And
> > > > > in that case we will never see the completion happen at all.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +	virtqueue_kick(vq);
> > > > I may have misread this. Can the actually start before virtqueue_kick() is
> > > > called ?
> > I didn't write it properly here. I wanted to say,
> > 
> > "Can the _transfer_ actually start before virtqueue_kick() is called ?"
> 
> 
> It can't start until the virtqueue_kick() is called. Call virtqueue_kick
> then wait.

Great, thanks for the confirmation. The code is fine then.

-- 
viresh