Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753546AbdCHOeR (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:34:17 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:19120 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039AbdCHOeO (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:34:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] xen/9pfs: receive responses To: Stefano Stabellini References: <1488830488-18506-1-git-send-email-sstabellini@kernel.org> <1488830488-18506-6-git-send-email-sstabellini@kernel.org> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefano Stabellini , jgross@suse.com, Eric Van Hensbergen , Ron Minnich , Latchesar Ionkov , v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net From: Boris Ostrovsky Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:33:22 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1678 Lines: 55 > >>> + >>> + if (xen_9pfs_queued(prod, cons, XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE) < sizeof(h)) { >>> + notify_remote_via_irq(ring->irq); >>> + return; >>> + } >>> + >>> + masked_prod = xen_9pfs_mask(prod, XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE); >>> + masked_cons = xen_9pfs_mask(cons, XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE); >>> + >>> + xen_9pfs_read_packet(ring->ring.in, >>> + masked_prod, &masked_cons, >>> + XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE, &h, sizeof(h)); >>> + >>> + req = p9_tag_lookup(priv->client, h.tag); >>> + if (!req || req->status != REQ_STATUS_SENT) { >>> + dev_warn(&priv->dev->dev, "Wrong req tag=%x\n", h.tag); >>> + cons += h.size; >>> + mb(); >>> + ring->intf->in_cons = cons; >>> + continue; >> >> I don't know what xen_9pfs_read_packet() does so perhaps it's done there >> but shouldn't the pointers be updated regardless of the 'if' condition? > This is the error path - the index is increased immediately. In the > non-error case, we do that right after the next read_packet call, few > lines below. > > >>> + } >>> + >>> + memcpy(req->rc, &h, sizeof(h)); >>> + req->rc->offset = 0; >>> + >>> + masked_cons = xen_9pfs_mask(cons, XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE); >>> + xen_9pfs_read_packet(ring->ring.in, >>> + masked_prod, &masked_cons, >>> + XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE, req->rc->sdata, h.size); >>> + >>> + mb(); >>> + cons += h.size; >>> + ring->intf->in_cons = cons; > Here ^ > So the second read is reading again from the same pointer in the ring, but this time it gets the whole packet, including the header. The first read was just poking at the header. Right? If that's correct, can you add a comment somewhere? (unless this is obvious to everyone else but me.) -boris