Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v3 1/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map definitions

[Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/01/14 15:30, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:10:10AM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> > v3:
> > - fix comment in xenvif_tx_dealloc_action()
> > - call unmap hypercall directly instead of gnttab_unmap_refs(), which does
> >    unnecessary m2p_override. Also remove pages_to_[un]map members
> Is it worthy to have another function call
> gnttab_unmap_refs_no_m2p_override in Xen core driver, or just add a
> parameter to control wether we need to touch m2p_override? I *think* it
> will benefit block driver as well?
>
> (CC Roger and David for input)
Yep, it worth, but let's make it a different patch

> > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> > @@ -771,6 +771,19 @@ static struct page *xenvif_alloc_page(struct xenvif *vif,
> >         return page;
> >   }
> >
> > +static inline void xenvif_tx_create_gop(struct xenvif *vif, u16 pending_idx,
> > +              struct xen_netif_tx_request *txp,
> > +              struct gnttab_map_grant_ref *gop)
> Indentation.
I fixed it and the later ones up, hopefully I haven't missed anything.

> > +
> > +       spin_lock_irqsave(&vif->dealloc_lock, flags);
> > +       do {
> > +               pending_idx = ubuf->desc;
> > +               ubuf = (struct ubuf_info *) ubuf->ctx;
> > +               index = pending_index(vif->dealloc_prod);
> > +               vif->dealloc_ring[index] = pending_idx;
> > +               /* Sync with xenvif_tx_action_dealloc:
> xenvif_tx_dealloc_action I suppose.
Yes.

> > +                       /* Already unmapped? */
> > +                       if (vif->grant_tx_handle[pending_idx] ==
> > +                               NETBACK_INVALID_HANDLE) {
> > +                               netdev_err(vif->dev,
> > +                                       "Trying to unmap invalid handle! "
> > +                                       "pending_idx: %x\n", pending_idx);
> > +                               continue;
> You seemed to miss the BUG_ON we discussed?
>
> See thread starting <52AF1A84.3090304@xxxxxxxxxx>.
Indeed, despite I wrote it in the version history :)



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel