netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<jonathan.davies@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:43:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5321EE47.5070709@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394718990.25873.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>

On 13/03/14 13:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 13:17 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> +				netdev_err(vif->dev,
>>>> +					   "Page still granted! Index: %x\n",
>>>> +					   i);
>>>> +			i = -1;
>>>
>>> Should there not be a break here? Otherwise don't we restart the for
>>> loop from 0 again? If that is intentional then a comment would be very
>>> useful.
>> Yes, that's intentional, we shouldn't exit this loop until everything is
>> unmapped. An i-- would be fine as well. I will put a comment there.
>
> Yes please do, it's very non-obvious what is going on. I'm almost
> inclined to suggest that this is one of the few places where a goto
> retry might be appropriate.
>
> Can you also add a comment saying what is doing the actual unmap work
> which we are waiting for here since it is not actually part of the loop.
> Might a barrier be needed to ensure we see that work happening?
I don't think a barrier is necessary here, if this function ran into 
!NETBACK_INVALID_HANDLE, it just starts again the checking.

On 13/03/14 13:17, Zoltan Kiss wrote:>>
 >> [...]
 >>> +    /* Btw. already unmapped? */
 >>
 >> What does this comment mean? Is it a fixme? An indicator that
 >> xenvif_grant_handle_reset is supposed to handle this case or something
 >> else?
 > It comes from the time when xenvif_grant_handle_reset was not a
 > standalone function. Yes, it refers to the check in the beginning of
 > that function, and it should go there.

I ended up removing that comment, the error message in the function 
tells the same.

Zoli

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-13 17:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-06 21:48 [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 1/9] xen-netback: Use skb->cb for pending_idx Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 2/9] xen-netback: Minor refactoring of netback code Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 3/9] xen-netback: Handle foreign mapped pages on the guest RX path Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-13 10:17   ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 12:34     ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-13 10:33   ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 10:56     ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2014-03-13 11:02       ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 11:09         ` David Vrabel
2014-03-13 11:13         ` Wei Liu
2014-03-13 13:17     ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-13 13:56       ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 17:43         ` Zoltan Kiss [this message]
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 5/9] xen-netback: Remove old TX grant copy definitons and fix indentations Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 6/9] xen-netback: Add stat counters for zerocopy Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 7/9] xen-netback: Handle guests with too many frags Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 8/9] xen-netback: Timeout packets in RX path Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-13 10:39   ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-06 21:48 ` [PATCH net-next v7 9/9] xen-netback: Aggregate TX unmap operations Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-19 21:16   ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-20  9:53     ` Paul Durrant
2014-03-20 10:48     ` Wei Liu
2014-03-20 11:14       ` Paul Durrant
2014-03-20 12:38         ` Wei Liu
2014-03-20 16:11           ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-07 21:05 ` [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy David Miller
2014-03-08 14:37   ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-08 23:57     ` David Miller
2014-03-10 10:15       ` Wei Liu
2014-03-12 15:40       ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-12 18:49         ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-13 10:43         ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 10:08 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-13 18:23   ` Zoltan Kiss

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5321EE47.5070709@citrix.com \
    --to=zoltan.kiss@citrix.com \
    --cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=jonathan.davies@citrix.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).