linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] Provides multiple submits and asynchronous notifications.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100315092301.GC14999@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:23:01 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"jdike@...user-mode-linux.org" <jdike@...user-mode-linux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] Provides multiple submits and asynchronous
	notifications.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:50PM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> >> +/* The structure to notify the virtqueue for async socket */
> >> +struct vhost_notifier {
> >> +	struct list_head list;
> > >+	struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > >+	int head;
> > >+	int size;
> > >+	int log;
> > >+	void *ctrl;
> > >+	void (*dtor)(struct vhost_notifier *);
> > >+};
> > >+
> 
> >So IMO, this is not the best interface between vhost
> >and your driver, exposing them to each other unnecessarily.
> >
> >If you think about it, your driver should not care about this structure.
> >It could get e.g. a kiocb (sendmsg already gets one), and call ki_dtor
> >on completion.  vhost could save it's state in ki_user_data.  If your
> >driver needs to add more data to do more tracking, I think it can put
> >skb pointer in the private pointer.
> 
> Then if I remove the struct vhost_notifier, and just use struct kiocb, but don't use the one got from sendmsg or recvmsg, but allocated within the page_info structure, and don't implement any aio logic related to it, is that ok?

Hmm, not sure I understand.  It seems both cleaner and easier to use the
iocb passed to sendmsg/recvmsg. No? I am not saying you necessarily must
implement full aio directly.

> Sorry, I made a patch, but don't know how to reply mail with a good formatted patch here....
> 
> Thanks
> Xiaohui

Maybe Documentation/email-clients.txt will help?
Generally you do it like this (at start of mail):

Subject: one line patch summary (overrides mail subject)

multilie patch description

Signed-off-by: <...>

---

Free text comes after --- delimeter, before patch.

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
index a140dad..e830b30 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
@@ -106,22 +106,41 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)




-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/