Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:49:47 +0000 | From | Zoltan Kiss <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/9] xen-netback: Change RX path for mapped SKB fragments |
| |
On 27/02/14 12:43, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:08:31PM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >> On 24/02/14 13:49, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >>> On 22/02/14 23:18, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >>>> On 18/02/14 17:45, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 21:24 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Re the Subject: change how? Perhaps "handle foreign mapped pages on the >>>>> guest RX path" would be clearer. >>>> Ok, I'll do that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> RX path need to know if the SKB fragments are stored on >>>>>> pages from another >>>>>> domain. >>>>> Does this not need to be done either before the mapping change >>>>> or at the >>>>> same time? -- otherwise you have a window of a couple of commits where >>>>> things are broken, breaking bisectability. >>>> I can move this to the beginning, to keep bisectability. I've >>>> put it here originally because none of these makes sense without >>>> the previous patches. >>> Well, I gave it a close look: to move this to the beginning as a >>> separate patch I would need to put move a lot of definitions from >>> the first patch to here (ubuf_to_vif helper, >>> xenvif_zerocopy_callback etc.). That would be the best from bisect >>> point of view, but from patch review point of view even worse than >>> now. So the only option I see is to merge this with the first 2 >>> patches, so it will be even bigger. >> Actually I was stupid, we can move this patch earlier and introduce >> stubs for those 2 functions. But for the another two patches (#6 and >> #8) it's still true that we can't move them before, only merge them >> into the main, as they heavily rely on the main patch. #6 is >> necessary for Windows frontends, as they are keen to send too many >> slots. #8 is quite a rare case, happens only if a guest wedge or >> malicious, and sits on the packet. >> So my question is still up: do you prefer perfect bisectability or >> more segmented patches which are not that pain to review? >> > > What's the diff stat if you merge those patches? >
drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h | 33 ++- drivers/net/xen-netback/interface.c | 67 +++++- drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 424 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 3 files changed, 362 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-)
| |