Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version
To:     Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200611113404.17810-1-mst@redhat.com>
 <20200611113404.17810-3-mst@redhat.com>
 <0332b0cf-cf00-9216-042c-e870efa33626@redhat.com>
 <20200622115946-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <c56cc86d-a420-79ca-8420-e99db91980fa@redhat.com>
 <CAJaqyWc3C_Td_SpV97CuemkQH9vH+EL3sGgeWGE82E5gYxZNCA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <6715f515-3db6-1006-09dd-19464e3ff676@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:15:40 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJaqyWc3C_Td_SpV97CuemkQH9vH+EL3sGgeWGE82E5gYxZNCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/6/23 下午3:00, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:51 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/6/23 上午12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2020/6/11 下午7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>     static void vhost_vq_free_iovecs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>      kfree(vq->descs);
>>>>> @@ -394,6 +400,9 @@ static long vhost_dev_alloc_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev)
>>>>>      for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
>>>>>              vq = dev->vqs[i];
>>>>>              vq->max_descs = dev->iov_limit;
>>>>> +           if (vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq) < 0) {
>>>>> +                   return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +           }
>>>> This check breaks vdpa which set iov_limit to zero. Consider iov_limit is
>>>> meaningless to vDPA, I wonder we can skip the test when device doesn't use
>>>> worker.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> It doesn't need iovecs at all, right?
>>>
>>> -- MST
>>
>> Yes, so we may choose to bypass the iovecs as well.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> I think that the kmalloc_array returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR for all of them
> in that case, so I didn't bother to skip the kmalloc_array parts.
> Would you prefer to skip them all and let them NULL? Or have I
> misunderstood what you mean?


I'm ok with either approach, but my understanding is that Michael wants 
to skip them all.

Thanks


>
> Thanks!
>