Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:47:17 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Hu <weh@microsoft.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Wilczynski <kw@linux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Introduce
 vmbus_request_addr_match()
Message-ID: <20220408164717.GA206777@anparri>
References: <20220407043028.379534-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20220407043028.379534-5-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <PH0PR21MB3025D745B0F3FA8893B32B39D7E99@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR21MB3025D745B0F3FA8893B32B39D7E99@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > @@ -1300,25 +1294,60 @@ u64 vmbus_request_addr(struct vmbus_channel
> > *channel, u64 trans_id)
> >  	if (!trans_id)
> >  		return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR;
> > 
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&rqstor->req_lock, flags);
> > -
> >  	/* Data corresponding to trans_id is stored at trans_id - 1 */
> >  	trans_id--;
> > 
> >  	/* Invalid trans_id */
> > -	if (trans_id >= rqstor->size || !test_bit(trans_id, rqstor->req_bitmap)) {
> > -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rqstor->req_lock, flags);
> > +	if (trans_id >= rqstor->size || !test_bit(trans_id, rqstor->req_bitmap))
> >  		return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR;
> > -	}
> > 
> >  	req_addr = rqstor->req_arr[trans_id];
> > -	rqstor->req_arr[trans_id] = rqstor->next_request_id;
> > -	rqstor->next_request_id = trans_id;
> > +	if (rqst_addr == VMBUS_RQST_ADDR_ANY || req_addr == rqst_addr) {
> > +		rqstor->req_arr[trans_id] = rqstor->next_request_id;
> > +		rqstor->next_request_id = trans_id;
> > 
> > -	/* The already held spin lock provides atomicity */
> > -	bitmap_clear(rqstor->req_bitmap, trans_id, 1);
> > +		/* The already held spin lock provides atomicity */
> > +		bitmap_clear(rqstor->req_bitmap, trans_id, 1);
> > +	}
> 
> In the case where a specific match is required, and trans_id is
> valid but the addr's do not match, it looks like this function will
> return the addr that didn't match, without removing the entry.

Yes, that is consistent with the description on vmbus_request_addr_match():

  Returns the memory address stored at @trans_id, or VMBUS_RQST_ERROR if
  @trans_id is not contained in the requestor.


> Shouldn't it return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR in that case?

Can certainly be done, although I'm not sure to follow your concerns.  Can
you elaborate?

Thanks,
  Andrea