Re: [PATCH 3/3] block nbd: use req.cookie instead of req.handle

[Nir Soffer <nsoffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:16 PM Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A good compiler should not compile this any differently, but it seems
> nicer to avoid memcpy() when integer assignment will work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/block/nbd.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/nbd.c b/drivers/block/nbd.c
> index 592cfa8b765a..672fb8d1ce67 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/nbd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static int nbd_send_cmd(struct nbd_device *nbd, struct nbd_cmd *cmd, int index)
>                 request.len = htonl(size);
>         }
>         handle = nbd_cmd_handle(cmd);

This returns native u64 (likely little endian) but the new interface
specifies __be64. Should we swap the bytes if needed?

This will help tools like the wireshark plugin to display the right value
when checking traces from machines with different endianness. Or help
the nbd server to show the same *cooike* value in the logs. The value
is opaque but reasonable code can assume that __be64 can be safely
parsed as an integer.

> -       memcpy(request.handle, &handle, sizeof(handle));
> +       request.cookie = handle;
>
>         trace_nbd_send_request(&request, nbd->index, blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(cmd));
>
> @@ -732,7 +732,7 @@ static struct nbd_cmd *nbd_handle_reply(struct nbd_device *nbd, int index,
>         u32 tag;
>         int ret = 0;
>
> -       memcpy(&handle, reply->handle, sizeof(handle));
> +       handle = reply->cookie;
>         tag = nbd_handle_to_tag(handle);
>         hwq = blk_mq_unique_tag_to_hwq(tag);
>         if (hwq < nbd->tag_set.nr_hw_queues)
> --
> 2.39.2
>

Also the same file has references to *handle* like:

static u64 nbd_cmd_handle(struct nbd_cmd *cmd)
{
    struct request *req = blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(cmd);
    u32 tag = blk_mq_unique_tag(req);
    u64 cookie = cmd->cmd_cookie;

    return (cookie << NBD_COOKIE_BITS) | tag;
}

static u32 nbd_handle_to_tag(u64 handle)
{
    return (u32)handle;
}

static u32 nbd_handle_to_cookie(u64 handle)
{
    return (u32)(handle >> NBD_COOKIE_BITS);
}

So this change is a little bit confusing.

I think we need to use a term like *nbd_cookie* instead of
*handle* to make this more clear.

Nir