Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:09:37 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@sberdevices.ru>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@sberdevices.ru,
        oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] several updates to virtio/vsock
Message-ID: <20230310090937.s55af2fx56zn4ewu@sgarzare-redhat>
References: <1804d100-1652-d463-8627-da93cb61144e@sberdevices.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1804d100-1652-d463-8627-da93cb61144e@sberdevices.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arseniy,

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:24:42PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>Hello,
>
>this patchset evolved from previous v2 version (see link below). It does
>several updates to virtio/vsock:
>1) Changes 'virtio_transport_inc/dec_rx_pkt()' interface. Now instead of
>   using skbuff state ('head' and 'data' pointers) to update 'fwd_cnt'
>   and 'rx_bytes', integer value is passed as an input argument. This
>   makes code more simple, because in this case we don't need to update
>   skbuff state before calling 'virtio_transport_inc/dec_rx_pkt()'. In
>   more common words - we don't need to change skbuff state to update
>   'rx_bytes' and 'fwd_cnt' correctly.
>2) For SOCK_STREAM, when copying data to user fails, current skbuff is
>   not dropped. Next read attempt will use same skbuff and last offset.
>   Instead of 'skb_dequeue()', 'skb_peek()' + '__skb_unlink()' are used.
>   This behaviour was implemented before skbuff support.
>3) For SOCK_SEQPACKET it removes unneeded 'skb_pull()' call, because for
>   this type of socket each skbuff is used only once: after removing it
>   from socket's queue, it will be freed anyway.

thanks for the fixes, I would wait a few days to see if there are any
comments and then I think you can send it on net without RFC.

@Bobby if you can take a look, your ack would be appreciated :-)

Thanks,
Stefano