Re: [RFC 1/6] mailbox: add core framework

[Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@sonymobile.com>]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 08:48:25PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 February 2014, Courtney Cavin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:35:01AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Monday 10 February 2014 16:23:48 Courtney Cavin wrote:
> 
> > Then again, I think that the context management stuff is the exception as well,
> > and I think that can/should also be handled in a higher level.  Regardless, I
> > went ahead and drafted the async flags idea out anyway, so here's some
> > pseudo-code.  I also tried to shoe-horn in 'peek', and you can see how that
> > turns out.  Let me know if this is something like what you had in mind.
> 
> The async implementation looks good to me, assuming we actually need both
> sync and async operations, which I can't tell for sure.

Yea, I would like some further input on that specifically.  I have added
Linus Walleij and Jassi Brar, who have had good input on mailboxes in
the past, and somehow I missed in this series.

> For the peek operation, it wouldn't work for the ethernet case, which
> has to call it from atomic context in net_rx_action.

It wouldn't work if the mbox is not requested with MBOX_ASYNC, but
otherwise that should be fine, as it would just peek into the kfifo.
That doesn't seem like a desirable method for ethernet use-case though,
as it ends up being two extra copies.

> > 	/**
> > 	 * so this is where this lock makes things difficult, as this function
> > 	 * might_sleep(), but only really because of the lock.  Either we can
> > 	 * remove the lock and force the adapter to do its own locking
> > 	 * spinlock-style, or we can accept the sleep here, which seems a bit
> > 	 * stupid in a peek function.  Neither option is good.  Additionally,
> > 	 * there's no guarantee that the adapter doesn't operate over a bus
> > 	 * which itself might_sleep(), exacerbating the problem.
> > 	 */
> > 	mutex_lock(&mbox->adapter->lock);
> > 	rc = mbox->adapter->ops->peek_message(mbox->adapter, mbox->chan, msg);
> > 	mutex_lock(&mbox->adapter->lock);
> 
> If we decide that peek() must not sleep, any driver that operates on a
> slow bus could just always report "no data" here.

Yes indeed, or it could just not implement peek, which seems reasonable.

> Moving the locking into the mbox driver here sounds appropriate.

I don't really like doing that for the entirety of the mbox core, as it
makes the simple adapters harder to write properly.  Since peek is not
a typical use-case, perhaps we could remove the locking for just peek,
and have a Big Fat Warning in the description of how to properly
implement it?

> 	Arnd

Thanks for the input!

-Courtney