From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21EF72 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:48:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id g25so35146038wrb.2 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=philpotter-co-uk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=VemNr59oeExyJMlI/fohSHUiHaPcBF5eF3WpdYswakk=; b=M9IJbA0mOpSB48bAdJievp/E3liC+59Nwq/hRNPPXENDITFPuot+VH1kNog7eOII3o vfGwgQa1SrHHPVzLn7SgQ2ElwiWKQF/O/Iw5/VNQ6qKs3pEnW+JNyKwMIRJPOdzHfbVb rdnAUpOTZGqYTIxg5Wu1k7BrDnHJKOA88NO+S6meyD0PFL3/3KllBKcSbHsGFaatlJLY IFvdR+HP4cdwzq4UGZwivPyF5XNPH9ZvLdQl0k75I4QLdhIMjrzuvvMpaPUXHJEd7j60 4BpC7Lm5dh1dxi4YczI3aKXbUD7geame1JaBChDhlOmItNk5KHun8nLnyzcVbHvUrC42 zC4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=VemNr59oeExyJMlI/fohSHUiHaPcBF5eF3WpdYswakk=; b=sjCBDx7Pw4b8egSwlRBZO9/+FNoEaVd99240f7zTq1LL/g36yA0cEOaKIpaeayLfJ9 7nVg8loWoa9cbA2KBB8emsq5EgwN4phEYnv+hYNfQBbUGjHWeQGgKiOe+dU4VOxT0Sz6 XBzBUUfqlDxNoY8URO6BoHHzR3i2Y42n0dj7Sd60DmtmhnwwINeLLNBr2b9n+XkLArPu wODqj3F7RCPxR8qi5kgEsKkhUoCjTwalT6ds6HNvQfJScih58X4XKTMHD2oLQn6K7ZkD cxRwMRwEO8QG31MMJFMMX6aUn1b+FZ8KXZySlZpCQIkMhk3YnGNtHMmB2gRD59b0Qtsp 8frg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318EqA9I/5xTl5IM55GMq2uLn9ShZNslcbIyXhN4xAuBT7/1Fyp Vsc+vZzl5oCp3209BuR/DNUosw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhjgHbGfjEBnAo+HUxyGnXmicF9xB0Hdq/zXOQ0Wiy1Jb9RQcq1ZPeZjOOZVJ1NBNiqnA/qA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a40f:: with SMTP id d15mr26831147wra.41.1634464085094; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 02:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from equinox (2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.a.1.e.e.d.f.d.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. [2001:8b0:dfde:e1a0::2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm16216667wmi.1.2021.10.17.02.48.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 17 Oct 2021 02:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 10:48:02 +0100 From: Phillip Potter To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" Cc: Larry Finger , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dan Carpenter , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] staging: r8188eu: use completions and clean rtw_cmd_thread() Message-ID: References: <20211016091042.19614-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <3115690.HXPuu0oz9h@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3115690.HXPuu0oz9h@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 07:54:51PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > I guess that Dan will disagree with us :) Did you read his last message? > > I hope that he has time to review these patches. He expressed some doubts > about splitting the changes in two separate patches. As far as I know, since > Dan is a very experienced engineer (I am not even graduated and everything I > know of Computer Science is self-taught), I could have been wrong in doing > this work the way I did. > I did read it yes, he makes good points, and my motivation is simply that the patches look fine as they are to me personally :-) > > given that one semaphore was there for kthread start/stop and the other > > for queuing. Looks good to me anyway based on what I know of completion > > variables :-) I assume you've not made the waits killable or > > interruptible in patch 1 due to the fact they are specifically related > > to kthread start/stop? > > Good question! :) > > Let me explain how I chose to make one wait killable and the other > uninterruptible. > > As far as I know, waiters may spin or sleep while waiting to acquire a lock > (see spinlocks or mutexes for instance) or to be awakened (completions and > condition variables for instance). > > These were the cases of sleeping waiters. Sleeping can be done in > uninterruptible, interruptible / killable, and timed-out states. > > Where I'm 100% sure that the code doesn't require / want to be interrupted > for whatever reason I prefer to use uninterruptible variants (and so I did in > 1/3). > > When I'm not sure of the requirement above, I prefer to avoid that the > process or the entire system hangs while waiting to acquire a mutex or to be > awakened by a complete() (and so on). > > Conversely, using interruptible versions without proper checking of return > codes and without proper managing of errors may lead to serious bugs. > > Kernel threads (kthreads) are like user processes / threads and are scheduled > the same way the former are. One noteworthy difference is that their mm > pointer is NULL (they have not an userspace address spaces). However they are > still threads that have a PID in userspace and they can be killed by root. > > This is the output of the "ps -ef" command after "modprobe r8188eu": > > localhost:~ # ps -ef | grep RTW > root 1726 2 0 19:06 ? 00:00:00 [RTW_CMD_THREAD] > > Since the developers who wrote the original code thought that that thread > must be interrupted I thought that restricting interruptions to kills was the > wiser choice in 2/3. Conversely, I cannot see reasons to interrupt the core > part of a driver, so I chose to use an uninterruptible version of > wait_for_completion*() in the other parts of the code. > > I warned you that I'm not an engineer, so please double check my argument :) > Sounds good to me, just wanted to know your reasoning. > > Anyhow: > > > > For whole series: > > Acked-by: Phillip Potter > > Thanks for you ack. I really appreciated it. > You're welcome :-) Regards, Phil