[PATCH v5 2/7] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller

[Jassi Brar]

On 4 February 2015 at 22:12, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2015 21:03:50 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 4 February 2015 at 20:18, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 04 February 2015 20:04:21 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Using the bits of the pointer as the message instead of pointing
>> >> > to the message feels like an abuse of the API.
>> >> >
>> >> I can see your POV.
>> >> Now consider a client, like mine, that sends a u32 value as the data.
>> >> But unlike me, the client uses the mailbox api in 'async' mode i.e,
>> >> register a callback function, submit a 32bit message and move on. It
>> >> is perfectly doable, but doesn't kalloc'ing a u32 for each submission,
>> >> seem overkill?
>> >
>> > That could easily be done by dereferencing the message data in the
>> > function that queues the asynchronous message: instead of queuing
>> > the pointer, you queue the data in the driver.
>> >
>> The 'void *data' is not queued in the driver, but in the API code. Or
>> do I not get your point?
>
> My mistake. If the API keeps that pointer after returning to the caller
> here, this is indeed a problem for callers that have the message on the
> stack.
>
> The solution of storing the message in a circular buffer (in the API)
> would in turn require knowing the length of the data.
>
> Another option would be to require that the asynchronous version of the
> interface cannot be used with on-stack data and requires the object
> lifetime to be managed by the caller, which seems reasonable to me
> since you already need the completion callback.
>
Passing pointer to a structure on stack will be automatically punished
as a random crash/behavior.
We just need to make sure no client passes a value directly in 'void
*data', right?


I know typedef's are frowned upon, but how bad is the following option?
       typedef void*  mbox_data_info
       int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, mbox_data_info data);


Thanks
Jassi