From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: release the descriptor before the callback Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:18:53 +0530 Message-ID: <20160819024853.GR9681@localhost> References: <20160724062425.GW9681@localhost> <971733d9-fd18-2a1b-07c0-349b47747d49@codeaurora.org> <20160804125525.GF9681@localhost> <71a15611-645f-7523-1c26-14b420aff667@codeaurora.org> <20160804144003.GV1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20160808090203.GY9681@localhost> <21475c6e-a5f8-5125-3998-f3995ce67c4d@codeaurora.org> <20160810172805.GH9681@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sinan Kaya Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christopher Covington , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:31:21PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 8/10/2016 1:28 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > >> That's why, I preferred not to call the callback when I observe an error which I > >> > think it makes more sense. > > That doesnt make sense. A client set a callback, it expect you to call one. > > The result quried maybe txn completed or error. Since you have means, please > > report.. > > > > If there is a good way to fix tx_status, I can certainly do so. I just need to make > sure my implementation is robust and reliable. > > I saw your reply that we need to keep this information around until terminate_all is > called. > > What is a good implementation strategy? > > Keep a size limited list with error cookies and flush them in terminate all? I think so, terminate_all anyway cleans up the channel. Btw what is the behaviour on error? Do you terminate or somthing else? > What should I do if code reaches to the size limit? > > Size the error cookie list double the size of available descriptors? That won't help as you would have two values per cookie and we dont want that :) > >> Again, it will be a different patch than this one. I think v2 of this patch > >> > needs to go in as it is. > >> > > >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/31/64 > > I havent looked at the patch. If it is not invoking callback set by user, > > then I am not taking it. Sorry, we dont choose over client's wish. > > Ok. The problem you are referring to is something else and needs to be addressed > separately. I can create a series with first implement a reliable tx_status based > on your recommendation above. > > Then, change the current behavior so that client callback is always executed as you > requested. > > After that this patch to fix the free order. -- ~Vinod