[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5555DF44.1070502@citrix.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:57:56 +0200
From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To: Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>
CC: <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
<justing@...ctralogic.com>, <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<paul.durrant@...rix.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] driver: xen-blkfront: move talk_to_blkback to the
correct place
El 15/05/15 a les 13.35, Bob Liu ha escrit:
>
> On 05/15/2015 07:14 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> El 15/05/15 a les 13.03, Bob Liu ha escrit:
>>>
>>> On 05/15/2015 06:01 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> El 12/05/15 a les 13.01, Bob Liu ha escrit:
>>>>> The right place for talk_to_blkback() to query backend features and transport
>>>>> parameters is after backend entered XenbusStateInitWait. There is no problem
>>>>
>>>> talk_to_blkback doesn't gather any backend features, it just publishes
>>>> the features supported by the frontend, which AFAICT can be done at any
>>>
>>> 1) But talk_tlkback will also allocate and initialize the request ring which
>>> should be done after backend entered XenbusStateInitWait.
>>
>> Maybe setup_blkring should be moved to a more suitable location instead
>> of moving the whole function?
>>
>
> Most of other parts in talk_to_blkback() depends on setup_blkring() like write
> out ring-ref and event-channel.
My bad. Yes, I see that talk_to_blkback writes the ring info stuff, so
yes, moving it as a whole to a more suitable place seems OK to me, but
please re-write the commit message to be more clear.
Roger.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists