On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 15:50 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> On 27/09/2018 03:57, houlong wei wrote:
[...]
> >>> +
> >>> +static int cmdq_pkt_append_command(struct cmdq_pkt *pkt, enum cmdq_code
> >>> code,
> >>> + u32 arg_a, u32 arg_b)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u64 *cmd_ptr;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (unlikely(pkt->cmd_buf_size + CMDQ_INST_SIZE > pkt->buf_size)) {
> >>> + pkt->cmd_buf_size += CMDQ_INST_SIZE;
> >>
> >> Why do we update the cmd_buf_size here?
> >
> > Because in developing phase of consumer driver, the consumer has to know
> > the real command buffer size after adding command failure. Then the
> > consumer will increase the size and run the cmdq flow (cmdq_pkt_create,
> > cmdq_pkt_write/wfe...) again. Finally, the consumer get the real size
> > and fix it.
> >
>
> But the consumer should know the size it needs for it's buffer and if not it
> should be able to decide on it's own how much space it needs. If he get's a
> -ENOMEM he implicitly knows that he has to increase the buf_size. Now the size
> depends on how many command he has pending and wasn't able to write to the
> cmdq_pkt.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
The consumer doesn't know how to calculate the command buffer size that
he needs.
When the consumer driver is developing, he could ignore the return value
of cmdq_pkt_write and other command appending functions.
He can print the pkt->cmdq_buf_size after cmdq_pkt_flush() or
cmdq_pkt_flush_async() failure. Now he can get the buffer size he needs.
I copy your another comment here, so I can reply in one mail.
>>If we want to write out a warning to the kernel log, then we should
>>but that in the if (unlikely(pkt->cmd_buf_size + CMDQ_INST_SIZE
>>pkt->buf_size)) from cmdq_pkt_append_command to make it consistent
>>between cmdq_pkt_write, cmdq_pkt_write_mask and cmdq_pkt_finalize.
Thanks, I will move WARN_ON() into cmdq_pkt_append_command() before
returning -ENOMEM.
After your confirmation of the comments above, I will re-send a new
patch.
