[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130214710.GC16261@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:47:10 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
ian.campbell@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH V3 13/16] netback: stub for multi receive
protocol support.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:45:31PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> Refactor netback, make stub for mutli receive protocols. Also stub
multi.
> existing code as protocol 0.
Why not 1?
Why do we need a new rework without anything using it besides
the existing framework? OR if you are, you should say which
patch is doing it...
>
> Now the file layout becomes:
>
> - interface.c: xenvif interfaces
> - xenbus.c: xenbus related functions
> - netback.c: common functions for various protocols
>
> For different protocols:
>
> - xenvif_rx_protocolX.h: header file for the protocol, including
> protocol structures and functions
> - xenvif_rx_protocolX.c: implementations
>
> To add a new protocol:
>
> - include protocol header in common.h
> - modify XENVIF_MAX_RX_PROTOCOL in common.h
> - add protocol structure in xenvif.rx union
> - stub in xenbus.c
> - modify Makefile
>
> A protocol should define five functions:
>
> - setup: setup frontend / backend ring connections
> - teardown: teardown frontend / backend ring connections
> - start_xmit: host start xmit (i.e. guest need to do rx)
> - event: rx completion event
> - action: prepare host side data for guest rx
>
.. snip..
> -
> - return resp;
> -}
> -
> static inline int rx_work_todo(struct xenvif *vif)
> {
> return !skb_queue_empty(&vif->rx_queue);
> @@ -1507,8 +999,8 @@ int xenvif_kthread(void *data)
> if (kthread_should_stop())
> break;
>
> - if (rx_work_todo(vif))
> - xenvif_rx_action(vif);
> + if (rx_work_todo(vif) && vif->action)
> + vif->action(vif);
> }
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c
> index 79499fc..4067286 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c
> @@ -415,6 +415,7 @@ static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be)
> unsigned long rx_ring_ref[NETBK_MAX_RING_PAGES];
> unsigned int tx_ring_order;
> unsigned int rx_ring_order;
> + unsigned int rx_protocol;
>
> err = xenbus_gather(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
> "event-channel", "%u", &evtchn, NULL);
> @@ -510,6 +511,11 @@ static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be)
> }
> }
>
> + err = xenbus_scanf(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend, "rx-protocol",
feature-rx-protocol?
> + "%u", &rx_protocol);
> + if (err < 0)
> + rx_protocol = XENVIF_MIN_RX_PROTOCOL;
> +
You should check to see if the protocol is higher than what we can support.
The guest could be playing funny games and putting in 39432...
> err = xenbus_scanf(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend, "request-rx-copy", "%u",
> &rx_copy);
> if (err == -ENOENT) {
> @@ -559,7 +565,7 @@ static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be)
> err = xenvif_connect(vif,
> tx_ring_ref, (1U << tx_ring_order),
> rx_ring_ref, (1U << rx_ring_order),
> - evtchn);
> + evtchn, rx_protocol);
> if (err) {
> int i;
> xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err,
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists