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, 20 Oct 2021 16:17:09 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Cc:     Jie Deng <jie.deng@intel.com>, "wsa@kernel.org" <wsa@kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel <kernel@axis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: virtio: fix completion handling
Message-ID: <20211020104709.k6oqo2gmegiwfre4@vireshk-i7>
References: <20211019074647.19061-1-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <20211019074647.19061-3-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <20211019082211.ngkkkxlfcrsvfaxg@vireshk-i7>
 <81ea2661-20f8-8836-5311-7f2ed4a1781f@intel.com>
 <20211020091721.7kcihpevzf7h4d62@vireshk-i7>
 <20211020103849.GA9985@axis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211020103849.GA9985@axis.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 20-10-21, 12:38, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> I don't quite understand how that would be safe since
> virtqueue_add_sgs() can fail after a few iterations and all queued
> request buffers can have FAIL_NEXT set.  In such a case, we would end up
> waiting forever with your proposed change, wouldn't we?

Good point. I didn't think of that earlier.

I think a good simple way of handling this is counting the number of
buffers sent and received. Once they match, we are done. That
shouldn't break anything else I believe.

-- 
viresh