[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 33/33] Add Xen virtual block device driver.

[Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Dave Boutcher (boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:33 -0700, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > 
> > The block device frontend driver allows the kernel to access block
> > devices exported exported by a virtual machine containing a physical
> > block device driver.
> 
> First, I think this belongs in drivers/block (and the network driver
> belongs in drivers/net).  If we're going to bring xen to the party,
> lets not leave it hiding out in a corner.

Yeah, I think so too.

> > +   switch (backend_state) {
> > +   case XenbusStateUnknown:
> > +   case XenbusStateInitialising:
> > +   case XenbusStateInitWait:
> > +   case XenbusStateInitialised:
> > +   case XenbusStateClosed:
> 
> This actually should get fixed elsewhere, but SillyCaps???

I really don't care either way.  There's no shortage of this style
specifically for enums, in fact there's a wide variety of interesting
styles for enums.

> > +static inline int GET_ID_FROM_FREELIST(
> > +   struct blkfront_info *info)
> > +{
> > +   unsigned long free = info->shadow_free;
> > +   BUG_ON(free > BLK_RING_SIZE);
> > +   info->shadow_free = info->shadow[free].req.id;
> > +   info->shadow[free].req.id = 0x0fffffee; /* debug */
> > +   return free;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void ADD_ID_TO_FREELIST(
> > +   struct blkfront_info *info, unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > +   info->shadow[id].req.id  = info->shadow_free;
> > +   info->shadow[id].request = 0;
> > +   info->shadow_free = id;
> > +}
> 
> A real nit..but why are these routines SHOUTING?

GOOD QUESTION!  I had missed that, thanks.  Seems likely it was just half
converted from macro. I see no reason not to clean that up the rest of
the way.

> > +int blkif_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
> > +{
> > +   struct blkfront_info *info = inode->i_bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> > +   info->users--;
> > +   if (info->users == 0) {
> 
> Hrm...this strikes me as racey.  Don't you need at least a memory
> barrier here to handle SMP?
> 
> > +static struct xlbd_major_info xvd_major_info = {
> > +   .major = 201,
> > +   .type = &xvd_type_info
> > +};
> 
> I've forgotten what the current policy is around new major numbers. 

Damn, this is rather funny.  There was a number reserved, but somehow
this is the wrong one (should be 202 according to lanana[1]).  Thanks,
I'll fix that up.

thanks,
-chris

[1] http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/devices-2.6+.txt

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel