Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197541-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:59:03 -0400
From: =?utf-8?B?TsOtY29sYXMgRi4gUi4gQS4=?= Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] spi: Make dummy SG handling robust
Message-ID: <401f38c6-78ca-4553-8261-03290886a70b@notapiano>
References: <20240531094658.1598969-1-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
 <1ea41944-a107-4528-8e8d-559c06907e3f@notapiano>
 <CAHp75VeG9K3Ar4UJnGxus3zz_vtt4QfFdkYQ8=6D8pt2aB8kmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VcHsE_vb12rwgf6f3q4V_wUVq5tckA5QgFhwUHaYKjwWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3f0606f3-c781-49e1-a946-dc9aea77f835@notapiano>
 <CAHp75VehYoEFPV4jTdXh4D5DSGUkHzska6tuvB=BrZDpZhiv5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VehYoEFPV4jTdXh4D5DSGUkHzska6tuvB=BrZDpZhiv5Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 12:45:30AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:14 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
> <nfraprado@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 06:51:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:46 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:37 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
> > > > <nfraprado@collabora.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:44:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > applying either of these patches causes issues. See the traces for each one
> > > > > below. This was tested on top of next-20240531, which works fine.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, thank you very much for prompt testing! Can you test just the
> > > > second one without the revert?
> > >
> > > Ah, you wrote "either", so it seems you have tried that already.
> >
> > Yes exactly. Both patches are troublesome. Patch 2 causes a slightly different
> > null pointer dereference, in "dcache_clean_poc+0x20/0x38", as the stack trace I
> > posted shows.
> 
> I have sent a new series where the last patch has a massive rework of
> the cur_msg_mapped flag. Would be nice to see if it passes your tests.
> The main idea there is to actually move to per transfer flag(s) from
> per message one.

Ah great, I really felt that the flag should've been per transfer, so thank you
for making that change. I'll do some testing on Monday.

Thanks,
Nícolas