linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV

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: <1394707404.25873.36.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:43:24 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>, <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>,
	<andrew.bennieston@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with
 SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy

On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 15:40 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 18:57 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
> > Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:50 +0000
> > 
> > > Maybe you mixed up mine with that? But that's also not eligible to be
> > > applied yet.
> > 
> > I can always revert the series if there are major objections.
> 
> Zoltan -- does this patch series suffer from/expose the confusion
> regarding RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS which we are discussing
> separately on xen-devel? If the answer is yes then I think this series
> should be reverted for the time being because there seems to be some
> fairly fundamental questions about the semantics of that macro.

The answer was yes but we think this is fixed by "xen-netback: Schedule
NAPI from dealloc thread instead of callback" sent last night. I'll
review that next.

> If the answer is no then I will endeavour to review this version of the
> series ASAP (hopefully tomorrow) and determine if I have any other major
> objections which would warrant a revert.

There was a few things which I would have preferred to see fixed (or
understood) but what's done is done and I don't think any of it warrants
a revert. I commented on a few things which I was sure about or which
I'd like to see fixed in a follow up. I also let a bunch of minor stuff
like coding style nits slip since it doesn't seem worth the churn now
that it is in.

Thanks,
Ian.

--
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/