From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424491AbcFHKKT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:10:19 -0400 Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com ([208.91.2.13]:60897 "EHLO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423854AbcFHKKP (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:10:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH net v2] vmxnet3: segCnt can be 1 for LRO packets To: Shrikrishna Khare , , , References: <1465366415-124072-1-git-send-email-skhare@vmware.com> CC: Jin Heo From: Thomas Hellstrom Message-ID: <5757EEFC.3060709@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:10:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1465366415-124072-1-git-send-email-skhare@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.113.170.11] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX13-CAS-005.vmware.com (10.113.191.55) To EX13-MBX-024.vmware.com (10.113.191.44) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/08/2016 08:13 AM, Shrikrishna Khare wrote: > The device emulation may send segCnt of 1 for LRO packets. > > Signed-off-by: Shrikrishna Khare > Signed-off-by: Jin Heo > > --- > v2: fix subject line > --- > drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c | 2 +- > drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_int.h | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c b/drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c > index db8022a..6f399b2 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c > @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ vmxnet3_rq_rx_complete(struct vmxnet3_rx_queue *rq, > rcdlro = (struct Vmxnet3_RxCompDescExt *)rcd; > > segCnt = rcdlro->segCnt; > - BUG_ON(segCnt <= 1); > + BUG_ON(segCnt == 0); What will the vmxnet3 driver do otherwise if segCnt == 0? Please see below. > mss = rcdlro->mss; > if (unlikely(segCnt <= 1)) > segCnt = 0; Based on this code, it looks like it can handle the case without taking down the kernel completely, so instead of a "BUG_ON", would it make sense with a WARN_ON_ONCE() or WARN_ON()? Thanks, Thomas