From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] vringfd base/offset Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:18:59 -0500 Message-ID: <47F7B483.8090101@codemonkey.ws> References: <200804052202.09157.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <200804052204.28518.rusty__10896.9346424148$1207397431$gmane$org@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Max Krasnyansky , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Return-path: Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.188]:60835 "EHLO rn-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752638AbYDERTF (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:19:05 -0400 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e24so619130rng.1 for ; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200804052204.28518.rusty__10896.9346424148$1207397431$gmane$org@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Rusty Russell wrote: > It turns out the lguest (and possibly kvm) want the addresses in the > ring buffer to only cover a certain part of memory, and be offset. > > It makes sense that this be an ioctl. > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell > > @@ -208,12 +232,15 @@ int vring_get_buffer(struct vring_info * > out_len = &dummy; > > *in_len = *out_len = 0; > - > - if (unlikely(get_user(head, &vr->ring.avail->ring[head]) != 0)) > + > + if (unlikely(get_user(head, &vr->ring.avail->ring[vr->last_avail > + % vr->ring.num]))) Why not & with vr->mask for the sake of consistency with the rest of the code. Regards, Anthony Liguori