Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:49:57 +0000 | From | Zoltan Kiss <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/9] xen-netback: Change RX path for mapped SKB fragments |
| |
On 22/02/14 23:18, Zoltan Kiss wrote: > On 18/02/14 17:45, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 21:24 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >> >> Re the Subject: change how? Perhaps "handle foreign mapped pages on the >> guest RX path" would be clearer. > Ok, I'll do that. > >> >>> RX path need to know if the SKB fragments are stored on pages from >>> another >>> domain. >> Does this not need to be done either before the mapping change or at the >> same time? -- otherwise you have a window of a couple of commits where >> things are broken, breaking bisectability. > I can move this to the beginning, to keep bisectability. I've put it > here originally because none of these makes sense without the previous > patches. Well, I gave it a close look: to move this to the beginning as a separate patch I would need to put move a lot of definitions from the first patch to here (ubuf_to_vif helper, xenvif_zerocopy_callback etc.). That would be the best from bisect point of view, but from patch review point of view even worse than now. So the only option I see is to merge this with the first 2 patches, so it will be even bigger. And based on that principle, patch #6 and #8 should be merged there as well, as they solve corner cases introduced by the grant mapping. I don't know how much the bisecting requirements are written in stone. At this moment, all the separate patches compile, but after #2 there are new problems solved in #4, #6 and #8. If someone bisect in the middle of this range and run into these problems, they could quite easily figure out what went wrong looking at the adjacent patches. So I would recommend to keep this current order. What's your opinion?
Zoli
|  |