On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:50PM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> >> +/* The structure to notify the virtqueue for async socket */
> >> +struct vhost_notifier {
> >> + struct list_head list;
> > >+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > >+ int head;
> > >+ int size;
> > >+ int log;
> > >+ void *ctrl;
> > >+ void (*dtor)(struct vhost_notifier *);
> > >+};
> > >+
>
> >So IMO, this is not the best interface between vhost
> >and your driver, exposing them to each other unnecessarily.
> >
> >If you think about it, your driver should not care about this structure.
> >It could get e.g. a kiocb (sendmsg already gets one), and call ki_dtor
> >on completion. vhost could save it's state in ki_user_data. If your
> >driver needs to add more data to do more tracking, I think it can put
> >skb pointer in the private pointer.
>
> Then if I remove the struct vhost_notifier, and just use struct kiocb, but don't use the one got from sendmsg or recvmsg, but allocated within the page_info structure, and don't implement any aio logic related to it, is that ok?
Hmm, not sure I understand. It seems both cleaner and easier to use the
iocb passed to sendmsg/recvmsg. No? I am not saying you necessarily must
implement full aio directly.
> Sorry, I made a patch, but don't know how to reply mail with a good formatted patch here....
>
> Thanks
> Xiaohui
Maybe Documentation/email-clients.txt will help?
Generally you do it like this (at start of mail):
Subject: one line patch summary (overrides mail subject)
multilie patch description
Signed-off-by: <...>
---
Free text comes after --- delimeter, before patch.
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
index a140dad..e830b30 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
@@ -106,22 +106,41 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
--
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
