[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62b39e5eead1_32f38a294b6@dwillia2-xfh.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:57:34 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 3/8] PCI: Create PCI library functions in support of
DOE mailboxes.
Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 03:56:38PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
[..]
> > > +static int pci_doe_discovery(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u8 *index, u16 *vid,
> > > + u8 *protocol)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 request_pl = FIELD_PREP(PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_INDEX,
> > > + *index);
> > > + u32 response_pl;
> > > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(c);
> > > + struct pci_doe_task task = {
> > > + .prot.vid = PCI_VENDOR_ID_PCI_SIG,
> > > + .prot.type = PCI_DOE_PROTOCOL_DISCOVERY,
> > > + .request_pl = &request_pl,
> > > + .request_pl_sz = sizeof(request_pl),
> > > + .response_pl = &response_pl,
> > > + .response_pl_sz = sizeof(response_pl),
> > > + .complete = pci_doe_task_complete,
> > > + .private = &c,
> > > + };
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = pci_doe_submit_task(doe_mb, &task);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + wait_for_completion(&c);
> >
> > Another place where the need for a completion can be replaced with
> > flush_work().
>
> No not here. While this call is internal it is actually acting like an
> external caller. This specific wait is for that response to get back.
>
> This pattern was specifically asked for by you. Previously Jonathan had a
> synchronous call which took care of this but you said let all callers just
> handle it themselves. So all callers submit a task and if they want to wait
> for the response they have to do so themselves.
Ah, true I remember that. The nice thing about a doing your own
wait_for_completion() like this is that you can make it
wait_for_completion_interruptible() to give up on the DOE if it gets
stalled. However, if you have a work item per-task and you're willing to
do an uninterruptible sleep, then flush_work(&task->work) is identical.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists