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:   Thu, 19 May 2022 16:48:01 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Eugenio =?utf-8?B?UMOpcmV6?= <eperezma@redhat.com>
Cc:     mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        gdawar@xilinx.com, lingshan.zhu@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        lulu@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvivier@redhat.com,
        eli@mellanox.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        parav@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vdpasim: allow to enable a vq repeatedly
Message-ID: <20220519144801.m7ioxoa5beo5jzv7@sgarzare-redhat>
References: <20220519143145.767845-1-eperezma@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220519143145.767845-1-eperezma@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:31:45PM +0200, Eugenio P?rez wrote:
>Code must be resilient to enable a queue many times.
>
>At the moment the queue is resetting so it's definitely not the expected
>behavior.
>
>Fixes: 2c53d0f64c06 ("vdpasim: vDPA device simulator")
>Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>Signed-off-by: Eugenio P?rez <eperezma@redhat.com>
>---
> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>index ddbe142af09a..b53cd00ad161 100644
>--- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>+++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>@@ -355,9 +355,10 @@ static void vdpasim_set_vq_ready(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx, bool ready)
> 	struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[idx];
>
> 	spin_lock(&vdpasim->lock);
>-	vq->ready = ready;
>-	if (vq->ready)
>+	if (!vq->ready) {
>+		vq->ready = ready;
> 		vdpasim_queue_ready(vdpasim, idx);
>+	}

But this way the first time vq->ready is set to true, then it will never 
be set back to false.

Should we leave the assignment out of the block?
Maybe after the if block to avoid the problem we are fixing.

Thanks,
Stefano