Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> writes:
> On 06.04.22 17:56, Philippe Gerum via Xenomai wrote:
>> From: Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org>
>>
>> Regular threads should be allowed to write to RTIPC sockets provided
>> MSG_DONTWAIT is implicitly set for such a request. This would match
>> the existing behavior with other synchronization objects, such as
>> semaphores and events, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on usage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/drivers/ipc/bufp.c | 8 ++++++--
>> kernel/drivers/ipc/iddp.c | 8 ++++++--
>> kernel/drivers/ipc/rtipc.c | 4 ++--
>> kernel/drivers/ipc/xddp.c | 6 +++++-
>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/drivers/ipc/bufp.c b/kernel/drivers/ipc/bufp.c
>> index fd533dba27..565409dd6f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/drivers/ipc/bufp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/drivers/ipc/bufp.c
>> @@ -655,11 +655,15 @@ static ssize_t bufp_write(struct rtdm_fd *fd,
>> struct rtipc_private *priv = rtdm_fd_to_private(fd);
>> struct iovec iov = { .iov_base = (void *)buf, .iov_len = len };
>> struct bufp_socket *sk = priv->state;
>> + int flags = 0;
>>
>> if (sk->peer.sipc_port < 0)
>> return -EDESTADDRREQ;
>>
>> - return __bufp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, 0, &sk->peer);
>> + if (is_secondary_domain())
>> + flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
>> +
>> + return __bufp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, flags, &sk->peer);
>> }
>>
>> static int __bufp_bind_socket(struct rtipc_private *priv,
>> @@ -682,7 +686,7 @@ static int __bufp_bind_socket(struct rtipc_private *priv,
>> __test_and_set_bit(_BUFP_BINDING, &sk->status))
>> ret = -EADDRINUSE;
>> cobalt_atomic_leave(s);
>> -
>> +
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/drivers/ipc/iddp.c b/kernel/drivers/ipc/iddp.c
>> index a553902326..05d0193394 100644
>> --- a/kernel/drivers/ipc/iddp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/drivers/ipc/iddp.c
>> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ static ssize_t __iddp_recvmsg(struct rtdm_fd *fd,
>> }
>>
>> /* We want to pick one buffer from the queue. */
>> -
>> +
>> for (;;) {
>> ret = rtdm_sem_timeddown(&sk->insem, timeout, toseq);
>> if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> @@ -522,11 +522,15 @@ static ssize_t iddp_write(struct rtdm_fd *fd,
>> struct rtipc_private *priv = rtdm_fd_to_private(fd);
>> struct iovec iov = { .iov_base = (void *)buf, .iov_len = len };
>> struct iddp_socket *sk = priv->state;
>> + int flags = 0;
>>
>> if (sk->peer.sipc_port < 0)
>> return -EDESTADDRREQ;
>>
>> - return __iddp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, 0, &sk->peer);
>> + if (is_secondary_domain())
>> + flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
>> +
>> + return __iddp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, flags, &sk->peer);
>> }
>>
>> static int __iddp_bind_socket(struct rtdm_fd *fd,
>> diff --git a/kernel/drivers/ipc/rtipc.c b/kernel/drivers/ipc/rtipc.c
>> index 859bdab2f2..211b496ec5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/drivers/ipc/rtipc.c
>> +++ b/kernel/drivers/ipc/rtipc.c
>> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static int rtipc_select(struct rtdm_fd *fd, struct
>> xnselector *selector,
>> struct xnselect *block;
>> spl_t s;
>> int ret;
>> -
>> +
>> if (type != XNSELECT_READ && type != XNSELECT_WRITE)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ static struct rtdm_driver rtipc_driver = {
>> .read_rt = rtipc_read,
>> .read_nrt = NULL,
>> .write_rt = rtipc_write,
>> - .write_nrt = NULL,
>> + .write_nrt = rtipc_write, /* MSG_DONTWAIT. */
>> .select = rtipc_select,
>> },
>> };
>> diff --git a/kernel/drivers/ipc/xddp.c b/kernel/drivers/ipc/xddp.c
>> index ae5b720c0c..2ca0da5fd4 100644
>> --- a/kernel/drivers/ipc/xddp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/drivers/ipc/xddp.c
>> @@ -657,11 +657,15 @@ static ssize_t xddp_write(struct rtdm_fd *fd,
>> struct rtipc_private *priv = rtdm_fd_to_private(fd);
>> struct iovec iov = { .iov_base = (void *)buf, .iov_len = len };
>> struct xddp_socket *sk = priv->state;
>> + int flags = 0;
>>
>> if (sk->peer.sipc_port < 0)
>> return -EDESTADDRREQ;
>>
>> - return __xddp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, 0, &sk->peer);
>> + if (is_secondary_domain())
>> + flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
>> +
>> + return __xddp_sendmsg(fd, &iov, 1, flags, &sk->peer);
>> }
>>
>> static int __xddp_bind_socket(struct rtipc_private *priv,
>
> Does this patch have any dependency on 1-4, or was it just bundled with
> them by chance?
>
Not related. I'm upstreaming my patch queue indistinctly with stuff
which have been in use for a few months here.
--
Philippe.
