All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: release the descriptor before the callback
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:25:25 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804125525.GF9681@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <971733d9-fd18-2a1b-07c0-349b47747d49@codeaurora.org>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:19:44AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like I introduced a behavioral change while refactoring the code.
> >> The previous one would call the callback only if the transfer was successful
> >> but it would always call dma_cookie_complete.
> >>
> >> The new behavior is to call dma_cookie_complete only if the transfer is successful
> >> and it calls the callback even in the case of error cases. Then, the client has
> >> to query if transfer was successful.
> >>
> >> Which one is the correct behavior?
> > 
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > Cookie is always completed. That simply means trasactions was completed and
> > has no indication if the transaction was successfull or not.
> > 
> > Uptill now we had no way of reporting error, Dave's series adds that up, so
> > you can use it.
> > 
> > Callback is optional for users. Again we didnt convey success of
> > transaction, but a callback for reporting that trasaction was completed. So
> > invoking callback makes sense everytime.
> > 
> 
> Let's put Dave's series aside for the moment and assume an error case where
> something bad happened during the transfer. I can add the error code once Dave's
> series get merged.

Fair enough..

> Here is the callback from dmatest.
> 
> static void dmatest_callback(void *arg)
> { 
> 	done->done = true;
> }
> 
> Here is how the request is made.
> 
> dma_async_issue_pending(chan);
> 
> wait_event_freezable_timeout(done_wait, done.done,
> 			     msecs_to_jiffies(params->timeout));
> 
> status = dma_async_is_tx_complete(chan, cookie, NULL, NULL);
> if (!done.done) {
> 	timeout
> } else if (status != DMA_COMPLETE) { 
> 	error
> }
> 
> success.
> 
> Based on what I see here, receiving callback all the time is OK. The client
> checks if the callback is received or not first. 

Callback is optional from API PoV. Yes ppl do implement it :)

> Next, the client checks the status of the tx_status. 
> 
> In the error case mentioned, the callback will be executed. done.done will be true.
> 
> If I set dma_cookie_complete(desc) in error case, it would be wrong to tell the client
> that the transfer is successful. 

And here is the thing that you missed :)

Dmaengine tells transaction is complete. It does not say if the txn is
success or failure. It can transfer data and not say if data was
correct. A successful transaction implies data integrity as well, which
dmaengine can't provide.

> In my opinion, the new behavior is correct. Calling dma_cookie_complete(desc) all the time
> is not. Do you agree?
> 
> If yes, I can divide this patch into two. One to correct the ordering. Another one
> for behavioral change.

See above..

A callback or tx_status will only tell you the txn is completed. That is
why we have DMA_COMPLETE and not DMA_SUCCESS.

So current order seems fine to me!

-- 
~Vinod

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: release the descriptor before the callback
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:25:25 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804125525.GF9681@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <971733d9-fd18-2a1b-07c0-349b47747d49@codeaurora.org>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:19:44AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like I introduced a behavioral change while refactoring the code.
> >> The previous one would call the callback only if the transfer was successful
> >> but it would always call dma_cookie_complete.
> >>
> >> The new behavior is to call dma_cookie_complete only if the transfer is successful
> >> and it calls the callback even in the case of error cases. Then, the client has
> >> to query if transfer was successful.
> >>
> >> Which one is the correct behavior?
> > 
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > Cookie is always completed. That simply means trasactions was completed and
> > has no indication if the transaction was successfull or not.
> > 
> > Uptill now we had no way of reporting error, Dave's series adds that up, so
> > you can use it.
> > 
> > Callback is optional for users. Again we didnt convey success of
> > transaction, but a callback for reporting that trasaction was completed. So
> > invoking callback makes sense everytime.
> > 
> 
> Let's put Dave's series aside for the moment and assume an error case where
> something bad happened during the transfer. I can add the error code once Dave's
> series get merged.

Fair enough..

> Here is the callback from dmatest.
> 
> static void dmatest_callback(void *arg)
> { 
> 	done->done = true;
> }
> 
> Here is how the request is made.
> 
> dma_async_issue_pending(chan);
> 
> wait_event_freezable_timeout(done_wait, done.done,
> 			     msecs_to_jiffies(params->timeout));
> 
> status = dma_async_is_tx_complete(chan, cookie, NULL, NULL);
> if (!done.done) {
> 	timeout
> } else if (status != DMA_COMPLETE) { 
> 	error
> }
> 
> success.
> 
> Based on what I see here, receiving callback all the time is OK. The client
> checks if the callback is received or not first. 

Callback is optional from API PoV. Yes ppl do implement it :)

> Next, the client checks the status of the tx_status. 
> 
> In the error case mentioned, the callback will be executed. done.done will be true.
> 
> If I set dma_cookie_complete(desc) in error case, it would be wrong to tell the client
> that the transfer is successful. 

And here is the thing that you missed :)

Dmaengine tells transaction is complete. It does not say if the txn is
success or failure. It can transfer data and not say if data was
correct. A successful transaction implies data integrity as well, which
dmaengine can't provide.

> In my opinion, the new behavior is correct. Calling dma_cookie_complete(desc) all the time
> is not. Do you agree?
> 
> If yes, I can divide this patch into two. One to correct the ordering. Another one
> for behavioral change.

See above..

A callback or tx_status will only tell you the txn is completed. That is
why we have DMA_COMPLETE and not DMA_SUCCESS.

So current order seems fine to me!

-- 
~Vinod

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
Cc: dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
	Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: release the descriptor before the callback
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:25:25 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804125525.GF9681@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <971733d9-fd18-2a1b-07c0-349b47747d49@codeaurora.org>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:19:44AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like I introduced a behavioral change while refactoring the code.
> >> The previous one would call the callback only if the transfer was successful
> >> but it would always call dma_cookie_complete.
> >>
> >> The new behavior is to call dma_cookie_complete only if the transfer is successful
> >> and it calls the callback even in the case of error cases. Then, the client has
> >> to query if transfer was successful.
> >>
> >> Which one is the correct behavior?
> > 
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > Cookie is always completed. That simply means trasactions was completed and
> > has no indication if the transaction was successfull or not.
> > 
> > Uptill now we had no way of reporting error, Dave's series adds that up, so
> > you can use it.
> > 
> > Callback is optional for users. Again we didnt convey success of
> > transaction, but a callback for reporting that trasaction was completed. So
> > invoking callback makes sense everytime.
> > 
> 
> Let's put Dave's series aside for the moment and assume an error case where
> something bad happened during the transfer. I can add the error code once Dave's
> series get merged.

Fair enough..

> Here is the callback from dmatest.
> 
> static void dmatest_callback(void *arg)
> { 
> 	done->done = true;
> }
> 
> Here is how the request is made.
> 
> dma_async_issue_pending(chan);
> 
> wait_event_freezable_timeout(done_wait, done.done,
> 			     msecs_to_jiffies(params->timeout));
> 
> status = dma_async_is_tx_complete(chan, cookie, NULL, NULL);
> if (!done.done) {
> 	timeout
> } else if (status != DMA_COMPLETE) { 
> 	error
> }
> 
> success.
> 
> Based on what I see here, receiving callback all the time is OK. The client
> checks if the callback is received or not first. 

Callback is optional from API PoV. Yes ppl do implement it :)

> Next, the client checks the status of the tx_status. 
> 
> In the error case mentioned, the callback will be executed. done.done will be true.
> 
> If I set dma_cookie_complete(desc) in error case, it would be wrong to tell the client
> that the transfer is successful. 

And here is the thing that you missed :)

Dmaengine tells transaction is complete. It does not say if the txn is
success or failure. It can transfer data and not say if data was
correct. A successful transaction implies data integrity as well, which
dmaengine can't provide.

> In my opinion, the new behavior is correct. Calling dma_cookie_complete(desc) all the time
> is not. Do you agree?
> 
> If yes, I can divide this patch into two. One to correct the ordering. Another one
> for behavioral change.

See above..

A callback or tx_status will only tell you the txn is completed. That is
why we have DMA_COMPLETE and not DMA_SUCCESS.

So current order seems fine to me!

-- 
~Vinod

  reply	other threads:[~2016-08-04 12:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-14  2:57 [PATCH] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: release the descriptor before the callback Sinan Kaya
2016-07-14  2:57 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-07-16  1:00 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-07-16  1:00   ` Sinan Kaya
2016-07-24  6:24   ` Vinod Koul
2016-07-24  6:24     ` Vinod Koul
2016-07-25 14:19     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-07-25 14:19       ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 12:55       ` Vinod Koul [this message]
2016-08-04 12:55         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-04 12:55         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-04 14:17         ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 14:17           ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 14:40           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-08-04 14:40             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-08-04 15:27             ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 15:27               ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 15:38               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-08-04 15:38                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-08-04 15:59                 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-04 15:59                   ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-08  9:08                   ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08  9:08                     ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08 12:25                     ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-08 12:25                       ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-10 17:23                       ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-10 17:23                         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-10 17:23                         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-04 16:08                 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 16:08                   ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-04 16:15                   ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-04 16:15                     ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-05  6:32                     ` Robert Jarzmik
2016-08-05  6:32                       ` Robert Jarzmik
2016-08-05  8:34                       ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-05  8:34                         ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-05  8:34                         ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-08-05 15:17                         ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-05 15:17                           ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-08  9:02               ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08  9:02                 ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08 14:45                 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-08 14:45                   ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-10 17:28                   ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-10 17:28                     ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-10 17:28                     ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-10 17:31                     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-10 17:31                       ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-10 17:31                       ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  2:48                       ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19  2:48                         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19  3:26                         ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  3:26                           ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  3:26                           ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  3:42                           ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19  3:42                             ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19  3:48                             ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  3:48                               ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19  5:52                               ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19  5:52                                 ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19 11:13                                 ` okaya
2016-08-19 11:13                                   ` okaya
2016-08-19 11:13                                   ` okaya at codeaurora.org
2016-08-19 17:02                                   ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19 17:02                                     ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19 17:02                                     ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-19 17:21                                     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19 17:21                                       ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-19 17:21                                       ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-22  6:08                                       ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-22  6:08                                         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-22  6:08                                         ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-22 13:27                                         ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-22 13:27                                           ` Sinan Kaya
2016-08-22 17:00                                           ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-22 17:00                                             ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08  8:51           ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08  8:51             ` Vinod Koul
2016-08-08 12:10             ` okaya
2016-08-08 12:10               ` okaya at codeaurora.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160804125525.GF9681@localhost \
    --to=vinod.koul@intel.com \
    --cc=cov@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.