On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:51 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/6/23 上午12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> On 2020/6/11 下午7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> static void vhost_vq_free_iovecs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> >>> {
> >>> kfree(vq->descs);
> >>> @@ -394,6 +400,9 @@ static long vhost_dev_alloc_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> >>> for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> >>> vq = dev->vqs[i];
> >>> vq->max_descs = dev->iov_limit;
> >>> + if (vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq) < 0) {
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> + }
> >> This check breaks vdpa which set iov_limit to zero. Consider iov_limit is
> >> meaningless to vDPA, I wonder we can skip the test when device doesn't use
> >> worker.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> > It doesn't need iovecs at all, right?
> >
> > -- MST
>
>
> Yes, so we may choose to bypass the iovecs as well.
>
> Thanks
>
I think that the kmalloc_array returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR for all of them
in that case, so I didn't bother to skip the kmalloc_array parts.
Would you prefer to skip them all and let them NULL? Or have I
misunderstood what you mean?
Thanks!
