[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230310114000.6ptwpryulbvcqf5m@sgarzare-redhat>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:40:00 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru,
oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] several updates to virtio/vsock
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:42:13PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 10.03.2023 12:09, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Hi Arseniy,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:24:42PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patchset evolved from previous v2 version (see link below). It does
>>> several updates to virtio/vsock:
>>> 1) Changes 'virtio_transport_inc/dec_rx_pkt()' interface. Now instead of
>>> using skbuff state ('head' and 'data' pointers) to update 'fwd_cnt'
>>> and 'rx_bytes', integer value is passed as an input argument. This
>>> makes code more simple, because in this case we don't need to update
>>> skbuff state before calling 'virtio_transport_inc/dec_rx_pkt()'. In
>>> more common words - we don't need to change skbuff state to update
>>> 'rx_bytes' and 'fwd_cnt' correctly.
>>> 2) For SOCK_STREAM, when copying data to user fails, current skbuff is
>>> not dropped. Next read attempt will use same skbuff and last offset.
>>> Instead of 'skb_dequeue()', 'skb_peek()' + '__skb_unlink()' are used.
>>> This behaviour was implemented before skbuff support.
>>> 3) For SOCK_SEQPACKET it removes unneeded 'skb_pull()' call, because for
>>> this type of socket each skbuff is used only once: after removing it
>>> from socket's queue, it will be freed anyway.
>>
>> thanks for the fixes, I would wait a few days to see if there are any
>> comments and then I think you can send it on net without RFC.
>>
>> @Bobby if you can take a look, your ack would be appreciated :-)
>Ok, thanks for review. I'll wait for several days and also wait until
>net-next will be opened. Then i'll resend this patchset with net-next
Since they are fixes, they should go with the net tree, not net-next.
Cheers,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists