netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num

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:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Cc:	jasowang@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:25:26 +1030

> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> writes:
>> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> writes:
>>> It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
>>>
>>> - Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
>>>   equal to the vring size.
>>> - rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the refill,
>>>   we could check vq->num_free instead.
>>> - rq->num was required to be increased or decreased explicitly after each
>>>   get/put which results a bad API.
>>>
>>> So this patch removes them both to make the code simpler.
>>
>> Nice.  These fields date from when the vq struct was opaque.
>>
>> Applied,
>> Rusty.
> 
> Oops, this doesn't require any core virtio changes, so it's for DaveM:
> 
> Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>

Jason please repost this with Rusty's ACK, thanks.
--
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