Re: [PATCH v3 11/29] media: iris: implement reqbuf ioctl with vb2_queue_setup

Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-09-06T13:05:04Z

On 06/09/2024 13:50, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> +
>> +        ret = core->hfi_ops->session_open(inst);
>> +        if (ret) {
>> +            ret = -EINVAL;
>> +            dev_err(core->dev, "session open failed\n");
>> +            goto unlock;
>> +        }
>
> I don't understand the lifetime of the core->lock mutex here.
>
> It has verified the state as !ISIR_CORE_ERROR and then _released_ the
> lock so by the time you get to core->hfi_ops->session_open() you've not
> guaranteed the state at all.
>
> Shouldn't you continue to hold the core mutex for the duration of the
> core->does_stuff() operation ?
>
> i.e. the state was not !IRIS_CORE_ERROR at an indeterminate time prior
> to the next use of core-> ...
>
> Perhaps this is all very obvious but, I'm not immediately understanding
> what the mutex gurantees nor for how long it does that.

You'd probably be better off

- taking the mutex at the external facing API
- validating state if you must
- doing all of your core ops
- dropping

If I'm interpreting your code right, there's alot of checking state in
function a -> lock/check/unlock with function a then calling function b
- which again verifies core->state and then optionally modifies say the
linked list.

But since function b is called by function a, and function b requires
the core->lock - you may as well have held that lock from a through b.

Moreover - what's the use case of the very granular core->stat lock
checking ?

When is it valid for example for iris_vb2_queue_setup() to have
core->state change state during the lifetime of iris_vb2_queue_setup() ?

iris_vb2_queue_setup() checks core->state
-> locks - checks - release
-> calls iris_hfi_gen1_session_open or
iris_hfi_gen2_session_open
-> what is the assumed core->state @ that point?

So that's what I mean, I'm not immediately understanding why this
granular locking scheme is in use, seems way, way, way too granular ?

---
bod