On 20/03/17 18:47, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> thanks for sending this patch.
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:40:10PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> There exists a race when msg_submit return immediately as there was an
>> active request being processed which may have completed just before it's
>> checked again in mbox_send_message. This will result in return to the
>> caller without waiting in mbox_send_message even when it's blocking Tx.
>>
>> This patch fixes the issue by making use of non-negative token returned
>> by add_to_rbuf to check if the request was queued and block always if
>> so in blocking Tx mode.
>>
>> Fixes: 2b6d83e2b8b7 ("mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox")
>> Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghb...@gmail.com>
>> Reported-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.kli...@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> index 4671f8a12872..d5895791ab5d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *mssg)
>>
>> msg_submit(chan);
>>
>> - if (chan->cl->tx_block && chan->active_req) {
>> + if (chan->cl->tx_block && t >= 0) {
>
> What do you think about removing t>=0 at all?
> If add_to_rbuf() above returns negative number then we won't reach this point
> in code at all and quit this function with error. If execution reaches this
> line then
> we can say that t is definetely >= 0 and maybe it shouldn't be checked.
Ah right, sorry I missed to see that, will fix it.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
