Em Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:21:16 +0300
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@iki.fi> escreveu:
> > > > Btw, this is a very good reason why you should define the ioctl to
> > > > have an integer argument instead of a struct with a __s32 field
> > > > on it, as per my comment to patch 02/29:
> > > >
> > > > #define MEDIA_IOC_REQUEST_ALLOC _IOWR('|', 0x05, int)
> > > >
> > > > At 64 bit architectures, you're truncating the file descriptor!
> > >
> > > I'm not quite sure what do you mean. int is 32 bits on 64-bit systems as
> > > well.
> > Hmm.. you're right. I was thinking that it could be 64 bits on some
> > archs like sparc64 (Tru64 C compiler declares it with 64 bits), but,
> > according with:
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html
> > This is not the case on gcc.
> Ok. The reasoning back then was that what "int" means varies across
> compilers and languages. And the intent was to codify this to __s32 which
> is what the kernel effectively uses.
> The rest of the kernel uses int rather liberally in the uAPI so I'm not
> sure in the end whether something desirable was achieved. Perhaps it'd be
> good to go back to the original discussion to find out for sure.
> Still binaries compiled with Tru64 C compiler wouldn't work on Linux anyway
> due to that difference.
> Well, I stop here for this begins to be off-topic. :-)
Yes. Let's keep it as s32 as originally proposed. Just ignore my comments
about that :-)
> > > > > + get_task_comm(comm, current);
> > > > > + snprintf(req->debug_str, sizeof(req->debug_str), "%s:%d",
> > > > > + comm, fd);
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if it is a good idea to store the task that allocated
> > > > the request. While it makes sense for the dev_dbg() below, it
> > > > may not make sense anymore on other dev_dbg() you would be
> > > > using it.
> > >
> > > The lifetime of the file handle roughly matches that of the request. It's
> > > for debug only anyway.
> > >
> > > Better proposals are always welcome of course. But I think we should have
> > > something here that helps debugging by meaningfully making the requests
> > > identifiable from logs.
> > What I meant to say is that one PID could be allocating the
> > request, while some other one could be actually doing Q/DQ_BUF.
> > On such scenario, the debug string could provide mislead prints.
> Um, yes, indeed it would no longer match the process. But the request is
> still the same. That's actually a positive thing since it allows you to
> identify the request.
> With a global ID space this was trivial; you could just print the request
> ID and that was all that was ever needed. (I'm not proposing to consider
> that though.)
IMO, a global ID number would work better than get_task_comm().
Just add a static int monotonic counter and use it for the debug purposes,
static unsigned int req_count = 0;
snprintf(req->debug_str, sizeof(req->debug_str), "%u:%d",
Ok, eventually, it will overflow, but, it will be unique within
a reasonable timeframe to be good enough for debugging purposes.