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:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:07:48 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>, wsa@kernel.org,
        jie.deng@intel.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@axis.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: virtio: disable timeout handling
Message-ID: <20211019143748.wrpqopj2hmpvblh4@vireshk-i7>
References: <20211019074647.19061-1-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <20211019074647.19061-2-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <20211019080913.oajrvr2msz5enzvz@vireshk-i7>
 <YW6Rj/T6dWfMf7lU@kroah.com>
 <20211019094203.3kjzch7ipbdv7peg@vireshk-i7>
 <YW6pHkXOPvtidtwS@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YW6pHkXOPvtidtwS@kroah.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 19-10-21, 13:16, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 03:12:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-10-21, 11:36, Greg KH wrote:
> > > What is the "other side" here?  Is it something that you trust or not?
> > 
> > Other side can be a remote processor (for remoteproc over virtio or
> > something similar), or traditionally it can be host OS or host
> > firmware providing virtualisation to a Guest running Linux (this
> > driver). Or something else..
> > 
> > I would incline towards "we trust the other side" here.
> 
> That's in contradition with what other people seem to think the virtio
> drivers are for, see this crazy thread for details about that:
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211009003711.1390019-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com/
> 
> You can "trust" the hardware, but also handle things when hardware is
> broken, which is most often the case in the real world.

That's what I was worried about when I got you in, broken or hacked :)

> So why is having a timeout a problem here?  If you have an overloaded
> system, you want things to time out so that you can start to recover.
> 
> And if that hardware stops working?  Timeouts are good to have, why not
> just bump it up a bit if you are running into it in a real-world
> situation?

I think it is set to HZ currently, though I haven't tried big
transfers but I still get into some issues with Qemu based stuff.
Maybe we can bump it up to few seconds :)

-- 
viresh