Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v5 4/9] xen-netback: Change RX path for mapped SKB fragments

[Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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. And based on 
that principle, patch #6 and #8 should be merged there as well, as they 
solve corner cases introduced by the grant mapping.
I don't know how much the bisecting requirements are written in stone. 
At this moment, all the separate patches compile, but after #2 there are 
new problems solved in #4, #6 and #8. If someone bisect in the middle of 
this range and run into these problems, they could quite easily figure 
out what went wrong looking at the adjacent patches. So I would 
recommend to keep this current order.
What's your opinion?

Zoli

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel