From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDjPg-00060n-OX for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:08:37 -0700 Received: from [198.99.130.12] (helo=saraswathi.solana.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IDjOH-0007Sb-Ua for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:07:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:07:00 -0400 From: Jeff Dike Message-ID: <20070725160700.GA7607@c2.user-mode-linux.org> References: <20070725143227.GO5115@pintsize> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070725143227.GO5115@pintsize> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [RFC PATCH] vde network backend List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Luca Bigliardi Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 04:32:27PM +0200, Luca Bigliardi wrote: > Hi, > I've written a new network backend for user-mode-linux using libvdeplug to > connect to a vde_switch. In the following lines I've made a little > description of what VDE is and I've written a couple of examples to give > you an idea of the benefits you can have using this backend. > > Please tell me what do you think about vde-transport and its first > implementation I'm attaching in this mail (It's a patch developed on > 2.6.22.1 vanilla). Looks reasonable (and useful). Do you want me to drop it in my tree and forward it to mainline? If so, I'll need a changelog and a Signed-off-by:. Some comments - style violations : there are some cases of return(x) which should be return x if( blah ){ should be if(blah) { if(foo) return bar - the return should be on the next line the indentation of multi-line function calls is whacked I would leave out the likely()s. Unless you can show a noticable performance difference, they only clutter the code. printks should have severity specified (in userspace code, they are available as UM_KERN_*) um_kmalloc is gone - use kmalloc with UM_GFP_KERNEL I realize that you probably copied many of the above problems from the existing code. All I can say is that I'm gradually fixing them, and I'd rather not add new instances. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel