Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21;
  receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com";
  x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of
  roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21;
  receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com";
  x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133
  ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4
  ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88
  ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83
  ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
IronPort-SDR: IvvKxSg4dbeFbcCMb8mQg2hmNKN1dHBlv+hvJ5k3KFzLFrCUo54nSohVm1Nj9rwnVth2BJNI2x
 JPI6ajaUbFkFZkjmq5ELJNIuDQnJREtod5GEE0DAVNLzS2QjoYqf39Aqrjh5n4i0ckGXafk57+
 2o2KJs1bj6VUCj/ZnsetHXwDt6gEzKRo39oFksYnKVKsFne/J+GIhh9stUxLlPpJcGbu7AM9YR
 1f8O2R+xmwDcisfR2+SyZ8jIV2Hect5f8YyO0WH5ivNcnTuhJnwG5NSsUkSOn7qV4JsNMBVpAT
 mXA=
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:40:10 +0100
From:   Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= <jgross@suse.com>
CC:     <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/blkfront: fix ring info addressing
Message-ID: <20200305114010.GV24458@Air-de-Roger.citrite.net>
References: <20200305100331.16790-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20200305104935.GU24458@Air-de-Roger.citrite.net>
 <20915d12-665e-bd23-2685-d2ec7e015679@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20915d12-665e-bd23-2685-d2ec7e015679@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 12:04:27PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 05.03.20 11:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > Commit 0265d6e8ddb890 ("xen/blkfront: limit allocated memory size to
> > > actual use case") made struct blkfront_ring_info size dynamic. This is
> > > fine when running with only one queue, but with multiple queues the
> > > addressing of the single queues has to be adapted as the structs are
> > > allocated in an array.
> > 
> > Thanks, and sorry for not catching this during review.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 0265d6e8ddb890 ("xen/blkfront: limit allocated memory size to actual use case")
> > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > >   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > > index e2ad6bba2281..a8d4a3838e5d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > > @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ struct blkfront_info
> > >   	struct blk_mq_tag_set tag_set;
> > >   	struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo;
> > >   	unsigned int nr_rings;
> > > +	unsigned int rinfo_size;
> > >   	/* Save uncomplete reqs and bios for migration. */
> > >   	struct list_head requests;
> > >   	struct bio_list bio_list;
> > > @@ -259,6 +260,21 @@ static int blkfront_setup_indirect(struct blkfront_ring_info *rinfo);
> > >   static void blkfront_gather_backend_features(struct blkfront_info *info);
> > >   static int negotiate_mq(struct blkfront_info *info);
> > > +#define rinfo_ptr(rinfo, off) \
> > > +	(struct blkfront_ring_info *)((unsigned long)(rinfo) + (off))
> >                                        ^ void * would seem more natural IMO.
> > 
> > Also if you use void * you don't need the extra (struct
> > blkfront_ring_info *) cast I think?
> 
> Yes, can change that.
> 
> > I however think this macro is kind of weird, since it's just doing an
> > addition. I would rather have that calculation in get_rinfo and code
> > for_each_rinfo on top of that.
> 
> I wanted to avoid the multiplication in the rather common
> for_each_rinfo() usage.

Can you undef it afterwards then? I don't think it's supposed to be
used by the rest of the file.

> 
> > 
> > I agree this might be a question of taste, so I'm not going to insist
> > but that would reduce the number of helpers from 3 to 2.
> > 
> > > +
> > > +#define for_each_rinfo(info, rinfo, idx)				\
> > > +	for (rinfo = info->rinfo, idx = 0;				\
> > > +	     idx < info->nr_rings;					\
> > > +	     idx++, rinfo = rinfo_ptr(rinfo, info->rinfo_size))
> > 
> > I think the above is missing proper parentheses around macro
> > parameters.
> 
> rinfo and idx are simple variables, so I don't think they need
> parentheses. info maybe. But just seeing it now: naming the
> parameter "rinfo" and trying to access info->rinfo isn't a good
> idea. It is working only as I always use "rinfo" as the pointer.

Dereferences of info and the increase of idx should have parentheses
IMO.

You could rename the rinfo parameter to entry or some such.

> > 
> > > +
> > > +static struct blkfront_ring_info *get_rinfo(struct blkfront_info *info,
> > > +					    unsigned int i)
> > 
> > inline attribute might be appropriate here.
> 
> See "the inline disease" in the kernel's coding style.

This function has two lines, so I think it's suitable to be inlined:
"A reasonable rule of thumb is to not put inline at functions that
have more than 3 lines of code in them"

I bet the compiler would do this already, but I think adding inline
here is fine according to coding style.

Thanks, Roger.