Hi,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 01:15:42PM -0600, Hari Kanigeri wrote:
In the current mailbox driver, the mailbox internal pointer for
callback can be directly manipulated by the Users, so a second
User can easily corrupt the first user's callback pointer.
The initial effort to correct this issue can be referred here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/107520/
Along with fixing the above stated issue, this patch adds the
flexibility option to register notifications from
multiple readers to the events received on a mailbox instance.
The discussion regarding this can be referred here.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg30671.html
Signed-off-by: Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Fernando Guzman Lugo <x0095840@xxxxxx>
Personally, I don't like this patch. I think it's much better to have a
per-message callback then a "global" notification which all users will
listen to.
What will happen is that every user will have to check if every message
belongs to them based on the notifications.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where you have 100 users each with 100
messages. You will have 100 * 100 (10.000)
"does-this-message-belongs-to-me" checks.
Rather than doing it this way, I would, as the easiest path, add a
"callback" parameter to omap_mbox_request_send() and then, internally,
allocate a e.g. struct omap_mbox_request and add that to a list of pending
messages. Something like:
struct omap_mbox_request {
struct omap_mbox *mbox;
int (*complete)(void *context);
void *context;
void *buf;
unsigned len;
struct list_head list;
};
[...]
int omap_mbox_request_send(struct omap_mbox *mbox, mbox_msg_t msg, int
(*complete)(void *context), void *context, gfp_t flags)
{
struct omap_mbox_queue *mq = mbox->txq;
struct omap_mbox_request *req;
int ret = 0;
int len;
req = kzalloc(sizeof(*req), flags);
if (!req) {
[...]
}
memcpy(req->buf, &msg, sizeof(msg));
req->len = sizeof(msg));
req->mbox = msg;
req->complete = complete;
req->context = context;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&req->list);
list_add_tail(&req->list, &mq->req_list);
/* kick the tasklet here */
return 0;
}
then on your tasklet, you simply iterate over the list and start sending
one by one and calling callback when it completes. You would be giving
your users a more asynchronous API and you wouldn't need this notifier
which, IMO, isn't a good solution at all.
But hey, since you'd be doing so many changes, you might as well provide
a:
omap_mbox_alloc_req();
to allocate a struct omap_mbox_request and a
omap_mbox_queue();
to add a request to the list (simply rename omap_mbox_send to
omap_mbox_queue() and make the necessary changes, like changing the
prototype to omap_mbox_queue(struct omap_mbux *mbox, struct
omap_mbox_request *req);)
In any case, even though I don't like the solution, it's Hiroshi's
decision to take or not this patch :-p
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
