lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v5 4/9] xen-netback: Change RX path for mapped SKB fragments
On 27/02/14 12:43, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:08:31PM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> On 24/02/14 13:49, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Actually I was stupid, we can move this patch earlier and introduce
>> stubs for those 2 functions. But for the another two patches (#6 and
>> #8) it's still true that we can't move them before, only merge them
>> into the main, as they heavily rely on the main patch. #6 is
>> necessary for Windows frontends, as they are keen to send too many
>> slots. #8 is quite a rare case, happens only if a guest wedge or
>> malicious, and sits on the packet.
>> So my question is still up: do you prefer perfect bisectability or
>> more segmented patches which are not that pain to review?
>>
>
> What's the diff stat if you merge those patches?
>

drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h | 33 ++-
drivers/net/xen-netback/interface.c | 67 +++++-
drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 424
++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
3 files changed, 362 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-27 19:01    [W:2.839 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site