From: Greg Banks Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/4] svc: Fix skip computation in svc_defer and svc_revisit Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:45:09 +1000 Message-ID: <20071024024509.GB17462@sgi.com> References: <20071019214058.31422.35615.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20071019214523.31422.28978.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20071023024530.GB6354@sgi.com> <20071023180354.GE30496@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: neilb@suse.de, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkWBA-0005MX-8l for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:41:08 -0700 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28] helo=relay.sgi.com ident=[U2FsdGVkX185mjKnRM0/zfyH6eQh2K+ibOy0wY/ukB4=]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1IkWBF-0007gY-KP for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:41:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20071023180354.GE30496@fieldses.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:03:55PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:45:23PM -0500, Tom Tucker wrote: > > > > > > The rq_arg.len includes the size of the transport header. The computations > > > assumed that it did not. > > > > ok, assuming that your latest svc_rdma_xdr_decode_req(), which I > > haven't read yet, doesn't change rq_arg.len as it parses the RDMA > > chunking header. > > > > The reason I mention that is that one set of patches I was working > > with some time ago had different semantics for rq_arg.len; when > > parsing the chunking header, rq_arg.len was adjusted downward as > > rq_head[0].iov_base was adjusted forward. This kept rq_arg.len equal > > to the sum of rq_{head[0],pages[...],tail[0]}.iov_len, which seemed > > like a good idea. > > > > But your way seems valid too. > > The integrity and privacy code may be a particularly unpleasant source > of assumptions about the various length fields; see e.g. > unwrap_integ_data() and unwrap_priv_data(). (But maybe nobody cares > about krb5i/krb5p over rdma?) More or less the entire point of NFS/RDMA is that the CPU never has to see the data that goes on the wire; no memory copies (*), no message digest calculations, no encryptions. This makes krb5[ip] over RDMA rather an unhelpful combination. But if there's some code there that makes actual assumptions about the xdr_buf.len field, we need to find it, document it and ensure we're maintaining that assumption in the new code. (*) Last time I looked the write path still had an unnecessary memcpy. Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Apparently, I'm Bedevere. Which MPHG character are you? I don't speak for SGI. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs