Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932428AbZLNUZn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:25:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758236AbZLNUZm (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:25:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55403 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753138AbZLNUZl (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:25:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:22:53 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Shirley Ma Cc: Rusty Russell , Avi Kivity , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Defer skb allocation -- add destroy buffers function for virtio Message-ID: <20091214202253.GG6150@redhat.com> References: <1258697359.7416.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200911231123.18898.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20091208122134.GA17286@redhat.com> <1260534506.30371.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1260534805.30371.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091213102632.GB6789@redhat.com> <1260821285.8716.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1260821285.8716.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1212 Lines: 40 On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:08:05PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > Hello Michael, > > I agree with the comments (will have two patches instead of 4 based on > Rusty's comments) except below one. > > On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 12:26 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > That said - do we have to use a callback? > > I think destroy_buf which returns data pointer, > > and which we call repeatedly until we get NULL > > or error, would be an a better, more flexible API. > > This is not critical though. > > The reason to use this is because in virtio_net remove, it has > BUG_ON(vi->num != 0), which will be consistent with small skb packet. If > we use NULL, error then we lose the track for vi->num, since we don't > know how many buffers have been passed to ULPs or still unused. > > Thanks > Shirley I dont insist, but my idea was for (;;) { b = vq->destroy(vq); if (!b) break; --vi->num; put_page(b); } so we do not have to lose track of the counter. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/