netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Defer skb allocation -- add destroy buffers function for virtio

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:08:05 -0800
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Defer skb allocation -- add destroy buffers
 function for virtio

Hello Michael,

I agree with the comments (will have two patches instead of 4 based on
Rusty's comments) except below one.

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 12:26 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> That said - do we have to use a callback?
> I think destroy_buf which returns data pointer,
> and which we call repeatedly until we get NULL
> or error, would be an a better, more flexible API.
> This is not critical though.

The reason to use this is because in virtio_net remove, it has
BUG_ON(vi->num != 0), which will be consistent with small skb packet. If
we use NULL, error then we lose the track for vi->num, since we don't
know how many buffers have been passed to ULPs or still unused.

Thanks
Shirley

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html