[PATCH v1] misc: fastrpc: Add support for multiple PD from one process

[Ekansh Gupta]

On 7/4/2024 11:47 AM, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>
> On 7/3/2024 4:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 12:22:00PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>>> @@ -268,6 +272,7 @@ struct fastrpc_channel_ctx {
>>>  	struct fastrpc_session_ctx session[FASTRPC_MAX_SESSIONS];
>>>  	spinlock_t lock;
>>>  	struct idr ctx_idr;
>>> +	struct ida dsp_pgid_ida;
>> You have an idr and an ida?  Why two different types for the same
>> driver?
> Using ida for this because for this I just need to allocate and manage unique IDs
> without any associated data. So this looks more space efficient that idr.
> Should I keep it uniform for a driver?
>>>  	struct list_head users;
>>>  	struct kref refcount;
>>>  	/* Flag if dsp attributes are cached */
>>> @@ -299,6 +304,7 @@ struct fastrpc_user {
>>>  	struct fastrpc_buf *init_mem;
>>>  
>>>  	int tgid;
>>> +	int dsp_pgid;
>> Are you sure this fits in an int?
> I think this should be fine for IDs in rage of 1000-1064.
changing this to u32 as won't be storin any negative values here if allocation fails.
>>> +static int fastrpc_pgid_alloc(struct fastrpc_channel_ctx *cctx)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret = -1;
>> No need to initialize this.
> I'll update this.
>>> +
>>> +	/* allocate unique id between MIN_FRPC_PGID and MAX_FRPC_PGID */
>>> +	ret = ida_alloc_range(&cctx->dsp_pgid_ida, MIN_FRPC_PGID,
>>> +					MAX_FRPC_PGID, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>> +		return -1;
>> Why is -1 a specific value here?  Return a real error please.
>> Or return 0 if that's not allowed.
> Sure, will fix this in next spin.
>> v
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static int fastrpc_device_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct fastrpc_channel_ctx *cctx;
>>> @@ -1582,6 +1605,12 @@ static int fastrpc_device_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>>  	fl->cctx = cctx;
>>>  	fl->is_secure_dev = fdevice->secure;
>>>  
>>> +	fl->dsp_pgid = fastrpc_pgid_alloc(cctx);
>>> +	if (fl->dsp_pgid == -1) {
>>> +		dev_dbg(&cctx->rpdev->dev, "too many fastrpc clients, max %u allowed\n", MAX_DSP_PD);
>>> +		return -EUSERS;
>> Why -EUSERS?
> This should be -EBUSY, I'll correct this.
>> And you obviously did not test this as you just leaked memory :(
> My bad, I ran basic fastrpc tests and the working of this use case. Sorry for the miss.
>
> --Ekansh
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>