Re: [PATCH 4/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Introduce vmbus_request_addr_match()

[Andrea Parri]

> > @@ -1300,25 +1294,60 @@ u64 vmbus_request_addr(struct vmbus_channel
> > *channel, u64 trans_id)
> >  	if (!trans_id)
> >  		return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR;
> > 
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&rqstor->req_lock, flags);
> > -
> >  	/* Data corresponding to trans_id is stored at trans_id - 1 */
> >  	trans_id--;
> > 
> >  	/* Invalid trans_id */
> > -	if (trans_id >= rqstor->size || !test_bit(trans_id, rqstor->req_bitmap)) {
> > -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rqstor->req_lock, flags);
> > +	if (trans_id >= rqstor->size || !test_bit(trans_id, rqstor->req_bitmap))
> >  		return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR;
> > -	}
> > 
> >  	req_addr = rqstor->req_arr[trans_id];
> > -	rqstor->req_arr[trans_id] = rqstor->next_request_id;
> > -	rqstor->next_request_id = trans_id;
> > +	if (rqst_addr == VMBUS_RQST_ADDR_ANY || req_addr == rqst_addr) {
> > +		rqstor->req_arr[trans_id] = rqstor->next_request_id;
> > +		rqstor->next_request_id = trans_id;
> > 
> > -	/* The already held spin lock provides atomicity */
> > -	bitmap_clear(rqstor->req_bitmap, trans_id, 1);
> > +		/* The already held spin lock provides atomicity */
> > +		bitmap_clear(rqstor->req_bitmap, trans_id, 1);
> > +	}
> 
> In the case where a specific match is required, and trans_id is
> valid but the addr's do not match, it looks like this function will
> return the addr that didn't match, without removing the entry.

Yes, that is consistent with the description on vmbus_request_addr_match():

  Returns the memory address stored at @trans_id, or VMBUS_RQST_ERROR if
  @trans_id is not contained in the requestor.


> Shouldn't it return VMBUS_RQST_ERROR in that case?

Can certainly be done, although I'm not sure to follow your concerns.  Can
you elaborate?

Thanks,
  Andrea