[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd9kiyOaSbaK6c4b7ucF23kgP0yQxKpUAGrjHgKfJprXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 00:20:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org"
<driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"marcelo.cerri@...onical.com" <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Do not wait forever on a device that has disappeared
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com> wrote:
>
> Before the guest finishes the device initialization, the device can be
> removed anytime by the host, and after that the host won't respond to
> the guest's request, so the guest should be prepared to handle this
> case.
> + while (true) {
> + if (hdev->channel->rescind) {
> + dev_warn_once(&hdev->device, "The device is gone.\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + if (wait_for_completion_timeout(comp, HZ / 10))
> + break;
> + }
Infinite loops are usually a red flags.
What's wrong with simple:
do {
...
} while (wait_...(...) == 0);
?
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = wait_for_response(hdev, &comp);
Better to use well established patterns, i.e.
if (ret)
return ret;
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = wait_for_response(hdev, &comp_pkt.host_event);
Here it looks okay on the first glance, but better to think about it
again and refactor.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists