On Thu, Oct 08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > @@ -295,9 +288,6 @@ static int fcopy_on_msg(void *msg, int len) > > if (fcopy_transaction.state == HVUTIL_DEVICE_INIT) > > return fcopy_handle_handshake(*val); > > > > - if (fcopy_transaction.state != HVUTIL_USERSPACE_REQ) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > This particular change seems unrelated and I'm unsure it's safe to > remove this check. It is meant to protect against daemon screwing the > protocol and writing to the device when it wasn't requested for an > action. It is correct to propagate -EINVAL in this case. Or am I missing > something and the check is redundant now?
What can happen if there is an odd write request? If there is a timeout scheduled some return value will be sent to the host. Then the state is set to RESET and eventually vmbus_recvpacket will receive something. That something will be processed and passed to the daemon. If there was no timeout scheduled the write will just return. Olaf _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
