lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping
On 13/03/14 13:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 13:17 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> + netdev_err(vif->dev,
>>>> + "Page still granted! Index: %x\n",
>>>> + i);
>>>> + i = -1;
>>>
>>> Should there not be a break here? Otherwise don't we restart the for
>>> loop from 0 again? If that is intentional then a comment would be very
>>> useful.
>> Yes, that's intentional, we shouldn't exit this loop until everything is
>> unmapped. An i-- would be fine as well. I will put a comment there.
>
> Yes please do, it's very non-obvious what is going on. I'm almost
> inclined to suggest that this is one of the few places where a goto
> retry might be appropriate.
>
> Can you also add a comment saying what is doing the actual unmap work
> which we are waiting for here since it is not actually part of the loop.
> Might a barrier be needed to ensure we see that work happening?
I don't think a barrier is necessary here, if this function ran into
!NETBACK_INVALID_HANDLE, it just starts again the checking.

On 13/03/14 13:17, Zoltan Kiss wrote:>>
>> [...]
>>> + /* Btw. already unmapped? */
>>
>> What does this comment mean? Is it a fixme? An indicator that
>> xenvif_grant_handle_reset is supposed to handle this case or something
>> else?
> It comes from the time when xenvif_grant_handle_reset was not a
> standalone function. Yes, it refers to the check in the beginning of
> that function, and it should go there.

I ended up removing that comment, the error message in the function
tells the same.

Zoli


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-13 19:21    [W:0.151 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site