On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:52:53 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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);
> }
In this case it should be called "get_unused_buf" or something. But I like
Shirley's approach here; destroy (with callback) accurately reflects the only
time this can be validly used.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
