On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:08:38PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Interesting. I think skb_goodcopy will sometimes
set *page to NULL. Will the above crash then?
Nope, when *page is NULL, *len is 0.
Hmm. Yes, I see, it is here:
+
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So what I would suggest is, have function
that just copies part of skb, and have
caller open-code allocating the skb and free up
pages as necessary.
Yes, the updated patch has changed the function.
What I am asking is why do we add
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 08:25:20AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So what I would suggest is, have function
that just copies part of skb, and have
caller open-code allocating the skb and free up
pages as necessary.
Yes, the updated
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Interesting. I think skb_goodcopy will sometimes
set *page to NULL. Will the above crash then?
Nope, when *page is NULL, *len is 0.
don't put empty line here. if below is part of same logical block as
skb_goodcopy.
Ok.
Local
Hello Michael,
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 14:08 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
+
+ err = vi-rvq-vq_ops-add_buf(vi-rvq, sg, 0, 2, skb);
+ if (err 0)
+ kfree_skb(skb);
+ else
+ skb_queue_head(vi-recv, skb);
So why are we queueing this still?
This is
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:46:53AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma x...@us.ibm.com
-
diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
index 100b4b9..dde8060 100644
--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
@@ -203,6
