From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751935AbbANC21 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:28:27 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56323 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbbANC20 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:28:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:36:00 +0008 From: Jason Wang Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] hv: hv_fcopy: drop the obsolete message on transfer failure To: Dexuan Cui Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , KY Srinivasan , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "olaf@aepfle.de" , "apw@canonical.com" , Haiyang Zhang Message-Id: <1421202480.4752.0@smtp.corp.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1417093747-21073-1-git-send-email-decui@microsoft.com> <8761caeqjp.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 21:52 PM >> To: Dexuan Cui; KY Srinivasan >> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> driverdev- >> devel@linuxdriverproject.org; olaf@aepfle.de; apw@canonical.com; >> jasowang@redhat.com; Haiyang Zhang >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hv: hv_fcopy: drop the obsolete message on >> transfer >> failure >> >> Dexuan Cui writes: >> >> > In the case the user-space daemon crashes, hangs or is killed, we >> > need to down the semaphore, otherwise, after the daemon starts >> next >> > time, the obsolete data in fcopy_transaction.message or >> > fcopy_transaction.fcopy_msg will be used immediately. >> >> It seems this patch got lost and I don't see it in recent 'resend' >> series. K.Y., Dexuan, can you please take a look? > Hi Vitaly, Jason, > The patch can't fix all the corner cases (it would need non-trivial > efforts for that) > as we discussed, but I think it would be better for us to have it as > it can indeed fix > an obvious issue and doesn't introduce new issues. > > I think I can document the known discussed corner cases in the patch > as TODOs > and resend the patch. > > Please let me know if you have different opinions. :-) > > Thanks, > -- Dexuan Yes, I think it's ok. We can do other fixes on top. Thanks