On 17.11.2023 11:30, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:12:38AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >> >> >> On 15.11.2023 14:11, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:20:04AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>>> This adds test which checks, that updating SO_RCVLOWAT value also sends >>> >>> You can avoid "This adds", and write just "Add test ...". >>> >>> See https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes >>> >>> Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" >>> instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy >>> to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change >>> its behaviour. >>> >>> Also in the other patch. >>> >>>> credit update message. Otherwise mutual hungup may happen when receiver >>>> didn't send credit update and then calls 'poll()' with non default >>>> SO_RCVLOWAT value (e.g. waiting enough bytes to read), while sender >>>> waits for free space at receiver's side. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 131 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >>>> index c1f7bc9abd22..c71b3875fd16 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >>>> @@ -1180,6 +1180,132 @@ static void test_stream_shutrd_server(const struct test_opts *opts) >>>> close(fd); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +#define RCVLOWAT_CREDIT_UPD_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 128) >>>> +#define VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) >>> >>> What about adding a comment like the one in the cover letter about >>> dependency with kernel values? >>> >>> Please add it also in the commit description. >>> >>> I'm thinking if we should move all the defines that depends on the >>> kernel in some special header. >> >> IIUC it will be new header file in tools/testing/vsock, which includes such defines. At >> this moment in will contain only VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE. Idea is that such defines > > So this only works on the virtio transport though, not the other > transports, right? (but maybe the others don't have this problem, so > it's fine). Yes, this case is only actual in virtio as this logic exists in virtio only (the same situation as for skb merging sometimes ago). > >> are not supposed to use by user (so do not move it to uapi headers), but needed by tests >> to check kernel behaviour. Please correct me if i'm wrong. > > Right! > Maybe if it's just one, we can leave it there for now, but with a > comment on top explaining where it comes. Ok, got it, I'll add comment Thanks, Arseniy > > Thanks, > Stefano >
