Hi,The 10 sec timeout will guarantee that we will not get a response at all
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+int rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
+ const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, u32 n)
+{
+ DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl);
+ DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, state, &compl, rpm_msg);
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!cmd || !n || n > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ memcpy(rpm_msg.cmd, cmd, n * sizeof(*cmd));
+ rpm_msg.msg.num_cmds = n;
+
+ ret = __rpmh_write(dev, state, &rpm_msg);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&compl, RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS);
IMO it's almost never a good idea to use wait_for_completion_timeout()
together with a completion that's declared on the stack. If you
somehow insist that this is a good idea then I need to see incredibly
clear and obvious code/comments that say why it's impossible that the
process might somehow try to signal the completion _after_
RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS has expired.
Specifically if the timeout happens but the process could still signal
a completion later then they will access random data on the stack of a
function that has already returned. This causes ridiculously
difficult-to-debug crashes.
NOTE: You've got timeout set to 10 seconds here. Is that really even
useful? IMO just call wait_for_completion() without a timeout. It's
much better to have a nice clean hang than a random stack corruption.