From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>, "stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org" <driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org>, "olaf@aepfle.de" <olaf@aepfle.de>, "apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>, "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>, "pebolle@tiscali.nl" <pebolle@tiscali.nl>, "stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>, "dan.carpenter@oracle.com" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 4/9] Drivers: hv: ring_buffer: enhance hv_ringbuffer_read() to support hvsock Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:41:20 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <0684d7e3211c464cbfe303e80dcab4b4@HKXPR3004MB0088.064d.mgd.msft.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r3hw1a3n.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 20:31 > ... > > To get the payload of hvsock, we need raw=0 to skip the level-1 header > > (i.e., struct vmpacket_descriptor desc) and we also need to skip the > > level-2 header (i.e., struct vmpipe_proto_header pipe_hdr). > > > > NB: if the length of the hvsock payload is not aligned with the 8-byte > > boundeary, at most 7 padding bytes are appended, so the real hvsock > > payload's length must be retrieved by the pipe_hdr.data_size field. > > > > I 'upgrade' the 'raw' parameter of hv_ringbuffer_read() to a > > 'read_flags', trying to share the logic of the function. > > When I was touching this code last time I was actually thinking about > eliminating 'raw' flag by making all ring reads raw and moving this > header filtering job to the upper layer (as we already have > vmbus_recvpacket()/vmbus_recvpacket_raw()) but for some reason I didn't > do it. I believe you have more or less the same reasoing for introducing > new read type instead of parsing this at a higher level. Some comments > below ... I feel it's more convenient to do the parsing in the vmbus driver than in all the driver users of vmbus driver. However, yes, I admit hv_ringbuffer_read() becomes less readable with my introduction of 'read_flags'. It may be a better idea to do the parsing in higher level, i.e., the hvsock driver, in my case. It looks I can avoid introducing vmbus_recvpacket_hvsock() and use vmbus_recvpacket() directly in my hvsock driver. Let me try to make a new patch this way. > > This patch is required by the next patch, which will introduce the hvsock > > send/recv APIs. > > > > ... > > @@ -619,9 +619,20 @@ int hv_ringbuffer_write(struct hv_ring_buffer_info > *ring_info, > > struct kvec *kv_list, > > u32 kv_count, bool *signal); > > > > +/* > > + * By default, a read_flags of 0 means: the payload offset is > > + * sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor). > > + * > > + * If HV_RINGBUFFER_READ_FLAG_RAW is used, the payload offset is 0. > > + * > > + * If HV_RINGBUFFER_READ_FLAG_HVSOCK is used, the payload offset is > > + * sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor) + sizeof(struct > > vmpipe_proto_header). > > So these are mutually exclusive, right? Should we introduce 'int > payload_offset' parameter instead of flags? Sorry for making the code less readable. :-) As I mentioned above, let me try to do things in a better way. > > @@ -415,17 +426,26 @@ int hv_ringbuffer_read(struct hv_ring_buffer_info > *inring_info, > > goto out_unlock; > > } > > > > + if (tot_hdrlen > buflen) { > > + ret = -ENOBUFS; > > + goto out_unlock; > > + } > > + > > + desc = (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)buffer; > > + > > next_read_location = hv_get_next_read_location(inring_info); > > - next_read_location = hv_copyfrom_ringbuffer(inring_info, &desc, > > - sizeof(desc), > > + next_read_location = hv_copyfrom_ringbuffer(inring_info, desc, > > + tot_hdrlen, > > next_read_location); > > + offset = 0; > > + if (!raw) > > + offset += (desc->offset8 << 3); > > + if (hvsock) > > + offset += sizeof(*pipe_hdr); > > So in case of !raw and hvsock we add both offsets? Yes... Thanks for you review, Vitaly. Thanks, -- Dexuan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Cc: "olaf@aepfle.de" <olaf@aepfle.de>, "pebolle@tiscali.nl" <pebolle@tiscali.nl>, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>, "driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org" <driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>, "stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>, "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>, "dan.carpenter@oracle.com" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 4/9] Drivers: hv: ring_buffer: enhance hv_ringbuffer_read() to support hvsock Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:41:20 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <0684d7e3211c464cbfe303e80dcab4b4@HKXPR3004MB0088.064d.mgd.msft.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r3hw1a3n.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 20:31 > ... > > To get the payload of hvsock, we need raw=0 to skip the level-1 header > > (i.e., struct vmpacket_descriptor desc) and we also need to skip the > > level-2 header (i.e., struct vmpipe_proto_header pipe_hdr). > > > > NB: if the length of the hvsock payload is not aligned with the 8-byte > > boundeary, at most 7 padding bytes are appended, so the real hvsock > > payload's length must be retrieved by the pipe_hdr.data_size field. > > > > I 'upgrade' the 'raw' parameter of hv_ringbuffer_read() to a > > 'read_flags', trying to share the logic of the function. > > When I was touching this code last time I was actually thinking about > eliminating 'raw' flag by making all ring reads raw and moving this > header filtering job to the upper layer (as we already have > vmbus_recvpacket()/vmbus_recvpacket_raw()) but for some reason I didn't > do it. I believe you have more or less the same reasoing for introducing > new read type instead of parsing this at a higher level. Some comments > below ... I feel it's more convenient to do the parsing in the vmbus driver than in all the driver users of vmbus driver. However, yes, I admit hv_ringbuffer_read() becomes less readable with my introduction of 'read_flags'. It may be a better idea to do the parsing in higher level, i.e., the hvsock driver, in my case. It looks I can avoid introducing vmbus_recvpacket_hvsock() and use vmbus_recvpacket() directly in my hvsock driver. Let me try to make a new patch this way. > > This patch is required by the next patch, which will introduce the hvsock > > send/recv APIs. > > > > ... > > @@ -619,9 +619,20 @@ int hv_ringbuffer_write(struct hv_ring_buffer_info > *ring_info, > > struct kvec *kv_list, > > u32 kv_count, bool *signal); > > > > +/* > > + * By default, a read_flags of 0 means: the payload offset is > > + * sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor). > > + * > > + * If HV_RINGBUFFER_READ_FLAG_RAW is used, the payload offset is 0. > > + * > > + * If HV_RINGBUFFER_READ_FLAG_HVSOCK is used, the payload offset is > > + * sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor) + sizeof(struct > > vmpipe_proto_header). > > So these are mutually exclusive, right? Should we introduce 'int > payload_offset' parameter instead of flags? Sorry for making the code less readable. :-) As I mentioned above, let me try to do things in a better way. > > @@ -415,17 +426,26 @@ int hv_ringbuffer_read(struct hv_ring_buffer_info > *inring_info, > > goto out_unlock; > > } > > > > + if (tot_hdrlen > buflen) { > > + ret = -ENOBUFS; > > + goto out_unlock; > > + } > > + > > + desc = (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)buffer; > > + > > next_read_location = hv_get_next_read_location(inring_info); > > - next_read_location = hv_copyfrom_ringbuffer(inring_info, &desc, > > - sizeof(desc), > > + next_read_location = hv_copyfrom_ringbuffer(inring_info, desc, > > + tot_hdrlen, > > next_read_location); > > + offset = 0; > > + if (!raw) > > + offset += (desc->offset8 << 3); > > + if (hvsock) > > + offset += sizeof(*pipe_hdr); > > So in case of !raw and hvsock we add both offsets? Yes... Thanks for you review, Vitaly. Thanks, -- Dexuan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-05 15:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-12-24 14:14 [PATCH V5 4/9] Drivers: hv: ring_buffer: enhance hv_ringbuffer_read() to support hvsock Dexuan Cui 2015-12-24 14:14 ` Dexuan Cui 2015-12-24 14:14 ` Dexuan Cui 2016-01-02 4:29 ` David Miller 2016-01-02 4:29 ` David Miller 2016-01-03 11:55 ` Dexuan Cui 2016-01-03 11:55 ` Dexuan Cui 2016-01-03 11:55 ` Dexuan Cui 2016-01-05 12:31 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2016-01-05 12:31 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2016-01-05 15:41 ` Dexuan Cui [this message] 2016-01-05 15:41 ` Dexuan Cui 2016-01-05 15:41 ` Dexuan Cui
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=0684d7e3211c464cbfe303e80dcab4b4@HKXPR3004MB0088.064d.mgd.msft.net \ --to=decui@microsoft.com \ --cc=apw@canonical.com \ --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \ --cc=kys@microsoft.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=olaf@aepfle.de \ --cc=pebolle@tiscali.nl \ --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \ --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \ --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.