All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
Cc: linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eric@anholt.net,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/18] staging: vchiq_core: do not initialize semaphores twice
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:06:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9366d835-a291-2770-4409-b88ea1a155e2@i2se.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddef268b97543abc9de05842b92e1fc5f0134de8.camel@suse.de>

Am 06.11.18 um 16:41 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
> Hi Stefan,
> thanks for spending the time reviewing the code. I took note of the
> rest of comments.
>
> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 21:45 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>>> Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de> hat am 26. Oktober
>>> 2018 um 15:48 geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>> vchiq_init_state() initialises a series of semaphores to then call
>>> remote_event_create() on the same semaphores, which initializes
>>> them
>>> again.
>> i would prefer to have all init stuff at one place in
>> vchiq_init_state() and drop this ugliness from remote_event_create()
>> instead. Is this possible?
> As I'm sure you're aware of, REMOTE_EVENT_T is shared between the CPU
> and VC4, which can't be expanded. And since storing a pointer is out of
> question because of arm64, I can only think of storing an index to an
> array of completions in the shared structure instead of the pointer
> magic implemented right now. It would be a little more explicit. Then
> we could completely decouple both initializations. I'm not sure if it's
> similar to what you had in mind. 

I don't think so, this was my intention:

 static inline void
 remote_event_create(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state, REMOTE_EVENT_T *event)
 {
    event->armed = 0;
    /* Don't clear the 'fired' flag because it may already have been set
    ** by the other side. */
-    sema_init((struct semaphore *)((char *)state + event->event), 0);
 }


>
> On a semi-related topic, I'm curious to know why these shared
> structures aren't set with the "__packed" preprocessor macro. Any
> ideas? As fas as I've been told, in general, the compiler may reorder
> or add unexpected padding to any structure. Which would be very bad in
> this case.

This would be better, but i assume the firmware side uses the same
source code. So using __packed only on ARM side could also break :-(

>
> Regards,
> Nicolas

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: stefan.wahren@i2se.com (Stefan Wahren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 09/18] staging: vchiq_core: do not initialize semaphores twice
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:06:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9366d835-a291-2770-4409-b88ea1a155e2@i2se.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddef268b97543abc9de05842b92e1fc5f0134de8.camel@suse.de>

Am 06.11.18 um 16:41 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
> Hi Stefan,
> thanks for spending the time reviewing the code. I took note of the
> rest of comments.
>
> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 21:45 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>>> Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de> hat am 26. Oktober
>>> 2018 um 15:48 geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>> vchiq_init_state() initialises a series of semaphores to then call
>>> remote_event_create() on the same semaphores, which initializes
>>> them
>>> again.
>> i would prefer to have all init stuff at one place in
>> vchiq_init_state() and drop this ugliness from remote_event_create()
>> instead. Is this possible?
> As I'm sure you're aware of, REMOTE_EVENT_T is shared between the CPU
> and VC4, which can't be expanded. And since storing a pointer is out of
> question because of arm64, I can only think of storing an index to an
> array of completions in the shared structure instead of the pointer
> magic implemented right now. It would be a little more explicit. Then
> we could completely decouple both initializations. I'm not sure if it's
> similar to what you had in mind. 

I don't think so, this was my intention:

?static inline void
?remote_event_create(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state, REMOTE_EVENT_T *event)
?{
??? event->armed = 0;
??? /* Don't clear the 'fired' flag because it may already have been set
??? ** by the other side. */
-??? sema_init((struct semaphore *)((char *)state + event->event), 0);
?}


>
> On a semi-related topic, I'm curious to know why these shared
> structures aren't set with the "__packed" preprocessor macro. Any
> ideas? As fas as I've been told, in general, the compiler may reorder
> or add unexpected padding to any structure. Which would be very bad in
> this case.

This would be better, but i assume the firmware side uses the same
source code. So using __packed only on ARM side could also break :-(

>
> Regards,
> Nicolas

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-06 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-26 13:47 [PATCH RFC 00/18] staging: vchiq: remove dead code & misc fixes Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47 ` [PATCH RFC 01/18] staging: vchiq_core: rework vchiq_get_config Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47 ` [PATCH RFC 02/18] staging: vchiq_arm: rework close/remove_service IOCTLS Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47 ` [PATCH RFC 03/18] staging: vchiq_shim: delete vchi_service_create Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47 ` [PATCH RFC 04/18] stagning: vchiq_arm: use list_for_each_entry when accessing bulk_waiter_list Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:47   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 05/18] staging: vchiq_arm: get rid of vchi_mh.h Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 06/18] staging: vchiq_arm: rework vchiq_ioc_copy_element_data Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 07/18] staging: vchiq-core: get rid of is_master distinction Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 08/18] staging: vchiq_core: remove unnecessary safety checks in vchiq_init_state Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 09/18] staging: vchiq_core: do not initialize semaphores twice Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-28 20:45   ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-28 20:45     ` Stefan Wahren
2018-11-06 15:41     ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-11-06 15:41       ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-11-06 16:06       ` Stefan Wahren [this message]
2018-11-06 16:06         ` Stefan Wahren
2018-11-06 18:28         ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-11-06 18:28           ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 10/18] staging: vchiq_core: don't add a wmb() before remote_event_signal() Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 11/18] staging: vchiq_arm: use completions instead of semaphores Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-28 21:00   ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-28 21:00     ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 12/18] staging: vchiq_util: " Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 13/18] staging: vchiq_core: " Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 14/18] staging: vchiq_util: get rid of unneeded memory barriers Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 15/18] stagning: vchiq_core: fix logic redundancy in parse_open Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-28 20:58   ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-28 20:58     ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 16/18] staging: vchiq_arm: rework probe and init functions Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-28 21:02   ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-28 21:02     ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 17/18] staging: vchiq_arm: fix open/release cdev functions Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48 ` [PATCH RFC 18/18] staging: vchiq: add more tasks to the TODO list Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-26 13:48   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2018-10-28 21:11   ` Stefan Wahren
2018-10-28 21:11     ` Stefan Wahren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9366d835-a291-2770-4409-b88ea1a155e2@i2se.com \
    --to=stefan.wahren@i2se.com \
    --cc=dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=eric@anholt.net \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=nsaenzjulienne@suse.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC 09/18] staging: vchiq_core: do not initialize semaphores twice' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.