On 19/02/18 12:23, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
[...]
>> +static int viommu_receive_resp(struct viommu_dev *viommu, int nr_sent,
>> + struct list_head *sent)
>> +{
>> +
>> + unsigned int len;
>> + int nr_received = 0;
>> + struct viommu_request *req, *pending;
>> +
>> + pending = list_first_entry_or_null(sent, struct viommu_request, list);
>> + if (WARN_ON(!pending))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + while ((req = virtqueue_get_buf(viommu->vq, &len)) != NULL) {
>> + if (req != pending) {
>> + dev_warn(viommu->dev, "discarding stale request\n");
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pending->written = len;
>> +
>> + if (++nr_received == nr_sent) {
>> + WARN_ON(!list_is_last(&pending->list, sent));
>> + break;
>> + } else if (WARN_ON(list_is_last(&pending->list, sent))) {
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pending = list_next_entry(pending, list);
>
> We should remove current element from the pending list. There is no
> guarantee we get response for each while loop so when we get back for
> more the _viommu_send_reqs_sync() caller will pass pointer to the out of
> date head next time.
Right, I'll fix this
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
