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);
}
so we do not have to lose track of the counter.
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
