On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:58:36PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > +struct virtio_vsock_buf { Please add a comment describing the purpose of this struct and to differentiate its use from struct virtio_vsock_pkt. > +static struct virtio_vsock_buf * > +virtio_transport_alloc_buf(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt, bool zero_copy) > +{ > + struct virtio_vsock_buf *buf; > + > + if (pkt->len == 0) > + return NULL; > + > + buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!buf) > + return NULL; > + > + /* If the buffer in the virtio_vsock_pkt is full, we can move it to > + * the new virtio_vsock_buf avoiding the copy, because we are sure that > + * we are not use more memory than that counted by the credit mechanism. > + */ > + if (zero_copy && pkt->len == pkt->buf_len) { > + buf->addr = pkt->buf; > + pkt->buf = NULL; > + } else { > + buf->addr = kmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL); buf and buf->addr could be allocated in a single call, though I'm not sure how big an optimization this is. > @@ -841,20 +882,24 @@ virtio_transport_recv_connected(struct sock *sk, > { > struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk); > struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans; > + struct virtio_vsock_buf *buf; > int err = 0; > > switch (le16_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.op)) { > case VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW: > pkt->len = le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.len); > - pkt->off = 0; > + buf = virtio_transport_alloc_buf(pkt, true); > > - spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > - virtio_transport_inc_rx_pkt(vvs, pkt); > - list_add_tail(&pkt->list, &vvs->rx_queue); > - spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > + if (buf) { > + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > + virtio_transport_inc_rx_pkt(vvs, pkt->len); > + list_add_tail(&buf->list, &vvs->rx_queue); > + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > - sk->sk_data_ready(sk); > - return err; > + sk->sk_data_ready(sk); > + } The return value of this function isn't used but the code still makes an effort to return errors. Please return -ENOMEM when buf == NULL. If you'd like to remove the return value that's fine too, but please do it for the whole function to be consistent.