From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8CAC4740C for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D62620820 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2437058AbfIWIHW (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:07:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38752 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405519AbfIWIHW (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:07:22 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f197.google.com (mail-qt1-f197.google.com [209.85.160.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DAF83D94D for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:07:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f197.google.com with SMTP id o34so16352971qtf.22 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 01:07:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=GtkVLxajS9qecd1iiLjWKYP8KasxkZAd70jCNiNzvoI=; b=CqrT9QajVG10+l9458G++KgJuQKi5Oya8fRHbP+pxUIT980KSvUf+A2eu1latR3FnQ l5ANIC5OxPyxn4CQirO/CO7M2T8eAPfcA4yipp0LioHg6JjHq5JtNbwuU0Wl7ctDWc7h HinQ8f5nEYyUo0qy6orVRFD0cHOo+MapAkIRwwL/HqGtwVDarO4RBQwjEcjCwb25Bfhg 9perSZqfc8NjFJEBzcGfhS2umyo5cpKBwabtP6Zy8VkKTI7c5dVL2xJy6/u8zZTnzNwn TszjjLjo2Z8Z4s1SSrZnE1URxBkK8lM84IbyRqqGw3reAU5T0SZ4YLyD0lIGxauHBiv7 1K7w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWuNiOv//x2cU00eWW9rNIG9E2Ajf+OhY2JrWOqSgZe7B30eoPi zhFaVCMf7Sv+pYORlZLQHdhUovYy/N9PE3qUv3d3Gji+ltYiq1jJbJ722uEPCMZ0BCrxZAQrZXC iUjJc1P+9+1ZU9SPm X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1767:: with SMTP id u36mr15795732qtk.152.1569226041433; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 01:07:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTFCDVmbYMZjvOnYtH+mE9geB7di4826uJa+jSeyr2GrwRD/VkW9bYWy7gYlmWOdfHPTBHMg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1767:: with SMTP id u36mr15795722qtk.152.1569226041292; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 01:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (bzq-79-176-40-226.red.bezeqint.net. [79.176.40.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 60sm5445508qta.77.2019.09.23.01.07.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 Sep 2019 01:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:07:15 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: wangxu Cc: jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: It's better to use size_t for the 3rd parameter of vhost_exceeds_weight() Message-ID: <20190923040518-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1569224801-101248-1-git-send-email-wangxu72@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1569224801-101248-1-git-send-email-wangxu72@huawei.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:46:41PM +0800, wangxu wrote: > From: Wang Xu > > Caller of vhost_exceeds_weight(..., total_len) in drivers/vhost/net.c > usually pass size_t total_len, which may be affected by rx/tx package. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xu Puts a bit more pressure on the register file ... why do we care? Is there some way that it can exceed INT_MAX? > --- > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 7 ++++--- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > index 36ca2cf..159223a 100644 > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static void vhost_dev_free_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev) > } > > bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, > - int pkts, int total_len) > + int pkts, size_t total_len) > { > struct vhost_dev *dev = vq->dev; > > @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ static size_t vhost_get_desc_size(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, > > void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *dev, > struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, int nvqs, > - int iov_limit, int weight, int byte_weight) > + int iov_limit, int weight, size_t byte_weight) > { > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq; > int i; > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h > index e9ed272..8d80389d 100644 > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h > @@ -172,12 +172,13 @@ struct vhost_dev { > wait_queue_head_t wait; > int iov_limit; > int weight; > - int byte_weight; > + size_t byte_weight; > }; > This just costs extra memory, and value is never large, so I don't think this matters. > -bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int pkts, int total_len); > +bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int pkts, > + size_t total_len); > void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *, struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, > - int nvqs, int iov_limit, int weight, int byte_weight); > + int nvqs, int iov_limit, int weight, size_t byte_weight); > long vhost_dev_set_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev); > bool vhost_dev_has_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev); > long vhost_dev_check_owner(struct vhost_dev *); > -- > 1.8.5.6