Hi Junnan, Ying
Thank you for the contribution!
A few minor comments on the process:
I think this series is missing a cover letter, not all the maintainers
have been CCd, and you should add the tag net (because it's a fix) to
the subject. (e.g. [PATCH net 1/2]).
Here you can find some useful information[1].
[1]https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:20:32PM +0800, Junnan Wu wrote:
From: Ying Gao <ying01.gao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In function virtio_vsock_probe, it initializes the variables
"rx_buf_nr" and "rx_buf_max_nr",
but in function virtio_vsock_restore it doesn't.
Move the initizalition position into function virtio_vsock_vqs_start.
Once executing s2r twice in a row without
I guess "s2r" is "suspend to resume" but is not that clear to me.
initializing rx_buf_nr and rx_buf_max_nr,
the rx_buf_max_nr increased to three times vq->num_free,
at this time, in function virtio_transport_rx_work,
the conditions to fill rx buffer
(rx_buf_nr < rx_buf_max_nr / 2) can't be met.
Signed-off-by: Ying Gao <ying01.gao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Junnan Wu <junnan01.wu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Maybe you need a "Co-Developed-by"?
---
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
index b58c3818f284..9eefd0fba92b 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
@@ -688,6 +688,8 @@ static void virtio_vsock_vqs_start(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
mutex_unlock(&vsock->tx_lock);
mutex_lock(&vsock->rx_lock);
+ vsock->rx_buf_nr = 0;
+ vsock->rx_buf_max_nr = 0;
virtio_vsock_rx_fill(vsock);
vsock->rx_run = true;
mutex_unlock(&vsock->rx_lock);
@@ -779,8 +781,6 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
vsock->vdev = vdev;
- vsock->rx_buf_nr = 0;
- vsock->rx_buf_max_nr = 0;
atomic_set(&vsock->queued_replies, 0);
mutex_init(&vsock->tx_lock);
--
2.34.1
Code LGTM.
Thank you,
Luigi
