For each storvsc_device, storvsc keeps track of the channel target CPUs
associated to the device (alloced_cpus) and it uses this information to
fill a "cache" (stor_chns) mapping CPU->channel according to a certain
heuristic.  Update the alloced_cpus mask and the stor_chns array when a
channel of the storvsc device is re-assigned to a different CPU.
Signed-off-by: NAndrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406001514.19876-12-parri.andrea@gmail.com
Reviewed-by; Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
[ wei: fix a small issue reported by kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> ]
Signed-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

VMBus version 4.1 and later support the CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL(22)
message type which can be used to request Hyper-V to change the vCPU
that a channel will interrupt.

Introduce the CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL message type, and define the
vmbus_send_modifychannel() function to send CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL
requests to the host via a hypercall.  The function is then used to
define a sysfs "store" operation, which allows to change the (v)CPU
the channel will interrupt by using the sysfs interface.  The feature
can be used for load balancing or other purposes.

One interesting catch here is that Hyper-V can *not* currently ACK
CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL messages with the promise that (after the ACK
is sent) the channel won't send any more interrupts to the "old" CPU.

The peculiarity of the CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL messages is problematic
if the user want to take a CPU offline, since we don't want to take a
CPU offline (and, potentially, "lose" channel interrupts on such CPU)
if the host is still processing a CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL message
associated to that CPU.

It is worth mentioning, however, that we have been unable to observe
the above mentioned "race": in all our tests, CHANNELMSG_MODIFYCHANNEL
requests appeared *as if* they were processed synchronously by the host.
Suggested-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406001514.19876-11-parri.andrea@gmail.comReviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
[ wei: fix conflict in channel_mgmt.c ]
Signed-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

The logic is unused since commit 509879bd ("Drivers: hv: Introduce
a policy for controlling channel affinity").

This logic assumes that a channel target_cpu doesn't change during the
lifetime of a channel, but this assumption is incompatible with the new
functionality that allows changing the vCPU a channel will interrupt.
Signed-off-by: NAndrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406001514.19876-9-parri.andrea@gmail.comReviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

Since vmbus_chan_sched() dereferences the ring buffer pointer, we have
to make sure that the ring buffer data structures don't get freed while
such dereferencing is happening.  Current code does this by sending an
IPI to the CPU that is allowed to access that ring buffer from interrupt
level, cf., vmbus_reset_channel_cb().  But with the new functionality
to allow changing the CPU that a channel will interrupt, we can't be
sure what CPU will be running the vmbus_chan_sched() function for a
particular channel, so the current IPI mechanism is infeasible.

Instead synchronize vmbus_chan_sched() and vmbus_reset_channel_cb() by
using the (newly introduced) per-channel spin lock "sched_lock".  Move
the test for onchannel_callback being NULL before the "switch" control
statement in vmbus_chan_sched(), in order to not access the ring buffer
if the vmbus_reset_channel_cb() has been completed on the channel.
Suggested-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406001514.19876-7-parri.andrea@gmail.comReviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

When Hyper-V sends an interrupt to the guest, the guest has to figure
out which channel the interrupt is associated with.  Hyper-V sets a bit
in a memory page that is shared with the guest, indicating a particular
"relid" that the interrupt is associated with.  The current Linux code
then uses a set of per-CPU linked lists to map a given "relid" to a
pointer to a channel structure.

This design introduces a synchronization problem if the CPU that Hyper-V
will interrupt for a certain channel is changed.  If the interrupt comes
on the "old CPU" and the channel was already moved to the per-CPU list
of the "new CPU", then the relid -> channel mapping will fail and the
interrupt is dropped.  Similarly, if the interrupt comes on the new CPU
but the channel was not moved to the per-CPU list of the new CPU, then
the mapping will fail and the interrupt is dropped.

Relids are integers ranging from 0 to 2047.  The mapping from relids to
channel structures can be done by setting up an array with 2048 entries,
each entry being a pointer to a channel structure (hence total size ~16K
bytes, which is not a problem).  The array is global, so there are no
per-CPU linked lists to update.  The array can be searched and updated
by loading from/storing to the array at the specified index.  With no
per-CPU data structures, the above mentioned synchronization problem is
avoided and the relid2channel() function gets simpler.
Suggested-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406001514.19876-4-parri.andrea@gmail.comReviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

vmbus_onmessage() doesn't need the header of the message, it only
uses it to get to the payload, we can pass the pointer to the
payload directly.
Signed-off-by: NVitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: NMichael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200406104154.45010-4-vkuznets@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NWei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

When a vPE is made resident, the GIC starts parsing the virtual pending
table to deliver pending interrupts. This takes place asynchronously,
and can at times take a long while. Long enough that the vcpu enters
the guest and hits WFI before any interrupt has been signaled yet.
The vcpu then exits, blocks, and now gets a doorbell. Rince, repeat.

In order to avoid the above, a (optional on GICv4, mandatory on v4.1)
feature allows the GIC to feedback to the hypervisor whether it is
done parsing the VPT by clearing the GICR_VPENDBASER.Dirty bit.
The hypervisor can then wait until the GIC is ready before actually
running the vPE.

Plug the detection code as well as polling on vPE schedule. While
at it, tidy-up the kernel message that displays the GICv4 optional
features.
Reviewed-by: NZenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NMarc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>

Since commit a8ac900b ("ext4: use non-movable memory for the
superblock") buffers for ext4 superblock were allocated using
the sb_bread_unmovable() helper which allocated buffer heads
out of non-movable memory blocks. It was necessarily to not block
page migrations and do not cause cma allocation failures.

However commit 85c8f176 ("ext4: preload block group descriptors")
broke this by introducing pre-reading of the ext4 superblock.
The problem is that __breadahead() is using __getblk() underneath,
which allocates buffer heads out of movable memory.

It resulted in page migration failures I've seen on a machine
with an ext4 partition and a preallocated cma area.

Fix this by introducing sb_breadahead_unmovable() and
__breadahead_gfp() helpers which use non-movable memory for buffer
head allocations and use them for the ext4 superblock readahead.
Reviewed-by: NAndreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Fixes: 85c8f176 ("ext4: preload block group descriptors")
Signed-off-by: NRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200229001411.128010-1-guro@fb.comSigned-off-by: NTheodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

All in-tree users have been converted to the new i2c_new_scanned_device
function, so remove this deprecated one.
Signed-off-by: NWolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: NWolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

Now that all the users of setup_irq() & remove_irq() have been replaced by
request_irq() & free_irq() respectively, delete them.
Signed-off-by: Nafzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: NLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/0aa8771ada1ac8e1312f6882980c9c08bd023148.1585320721.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com

For security reasons I stopped using gmail account and kernel address is
now up-to-date alias to my personal address.

People periodically send me emails to address which they found in source
code of drivers, so this change reflects state where people can contact
me.

[ Added .mailmap entry as per Joe Perches  - Linus ]
Signed-off-by: NPali Rohár <pali@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200307104237.8199-1-pali@kernel.orgSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

devm_memremap_pages() is currently used by the PCI P2PDMA code to create
struct page mappings for IO memory.  At present, these mappings are
created with PAGE_KERNEL which implies setting the PAT bits to be WB.
However, on x86, an mtrr register will typically override this and force
the cache type to be UC-.  In the case firmware doesn't set this
register it is effectively WB and will typically result in a machine
check exception when it's accessed.

Other arches are not currently likely to function correctly seeing they
don't have any MTRR registers to fall back on.

To solve this, provide a way to specify the pgprot value explicitly to
arch_add_memory().

Of the arches that support MEMORY_HOTPLUG: x86_64, and arm64 need a
simple change to pass the pgprot_t down to their respective functions
which set up the page tables.  For x86_32, set the page tables
explicitly using _set_memory_prot() (seeing they are already mapped).

For ia64, s390 and sh, reject anything but PAGE_KERNEL settings -- this
should be fine, for now, seeing these architectures don't support
ZONE_DEVICE.

A check in __add_pages() is also added to ensure the pgprot parameter
was set for all arches.
Signed-off-by: NLogan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: NDavid Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: NDan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Eric Badger <ebadger@gigaio.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306170846.9333-7-logang@deltatee.comSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

The mhp_restrictions struct really doesn't specify anything resembling a
restriction anymore so rename it to be mhp_params as it is a list of
extended parameters.
Signed-off-by: NLogan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: NDavid Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: NDan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Acked-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Eric Badger <ebadger@gigaio.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306170846.9333-3-logang@deltatee.comSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Patch series "Allow setting caching mode in arch_add_memory() for
P2PDMA", v4.

Currently, the page tables created using memremap_pages() are always
created with the PAGE_KERNEL cacheing mode.  However, the P2PDMA code is
creating pages for PCI BAR memory which should never be accessed through
the cache and instead use either WC or UC.  This still works in most
cases, on x86, because the MTRR registers typically override the caching
settings in the page tables for all of the IO memory to be UC-.
However, this tends not to work so well on other arches or some rare x86
machines that have firmware which does not setup the MTRR registers in
this way.

Instead of this, this series proposes a change to arch_add_memory() to
take the pgprot required by the mapping which allows us to explicitly
set pagetable entries for P2PDMA memory to UC.

This changes is pretty routine for most of the arches: x86_64, arm64 and
powerpc simply need to thread the pgprot through to where the page
tables are setup.  x86_32 unfortunately sets up the page tables at boot
so must use _set_memory_prot() to change their caching mode.  ia64, s390
and sh don't appear to have an easy way to change the page tables so,
for now at least, we just return -EINVAL on such mappings and thus they
will not support P2PDMA memory until the work for this is done.  This
should be fine as they don't yet support ZONE_DEVICE.

This patch (of 7):

This variable is not used anywhere and should therefore be removed from
the structure.
Signed-off-by: NLogan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: NDavid Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: NDan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Acked-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Badger <ebadger@gigaio.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306170846.9333-2-logang@deltatee.comSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>