cxl/core: Fix potential payload size confusion in cxl_mem_get_poison()
A recent change to cxl_mem_get_records_log() [1] highlighted a subtle nuance of looping calls to cxl_internal_send_cmd(), i.e. that cxl_internal_send_cmd() modifies the 'size_out' member of the @mbox_cmd argument. That mechanism is useful for communicating underflow, but it is unwanted when reusing @mbox_cmd for a subsequent submission. It turns out that cxl_xfer_log() avoids this scenario by always redefining @mbox_cmd each iteration. Update cxl_mem_get_records_log() and cxl_mem_get_poison() to follow the same style as cxl_xfer_log(), i.e. re-define @mbox_cmd each iteration. The cxl_mem_get_records_log() change is just a style fixup, but the cxl_mem_get_poison() change is a potential fix, per Alison [2]: Poison list retrieval can hit this case if the MORE flag is set and a follow on read of the list delivers more records than the previous read. ie. device gives one record, sets the _MORE flag, then gives 5. Not an urgent fix since this behavior has not been seen in the wild, but worth tracking as a fix. Cc: Kwangjin Ko <kwangjin.ko@sk.com> Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> Fixes: ed83f7ca ("cxl/mbox: Add GET_POISON_LIST mailbox command") Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20240402081404.1106-2-kwangjin.ko@sk.com [1] Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/ZhAhAL/GOaWFrauw@aschofie-mobl2 [2] Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/171235441633.2716581.12330082428680958635.stgit@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.comSigned-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment