[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201222171940.ijpuhkuxhvk33czg@bsd-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:19:40 -0800
From: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12 v2 RFC] skbuff: replace sock_zerocopy_put() with
skb_zcopy_put()
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 09:42:40AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:09 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
> >
> > Replace sock_zerocopy_put with the generic skb_zcopy_put()
> > function. Pass 'true' as the success argument, as this
> > is identical to no change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
>
> uarg->zerocopy may be false if sock_zerocopy_put_abort is called from
> tcp_sendmsg_locked
Yes, it may well be false. The original logic goes:
sock_zerocopy_put_abort()
sock_zerocopy_put()
sock_zerocopy_callback(..., success = uarg->zerocopy)
if (success)
The new logic is now:
sock_zerocopy_put_abort()
sock_zerocopy_callback(..., success = true)
uarg->zerocopy = uarg->zerocopy & success
if (uarg->zerocopy)
The success value ls latched into uarg->zerocopy, and any failure
is persistent. Hence my comment about passing 'true' not changing
the logic.
--
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists