> -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Jake Oshins
> > > From: Dexuan Cui
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 11:18 PM
> > > We don't really need such a big on-stack buffer.
> > > vmbus_sendpacket() here only uses sizeof(struct pci_child_message).
> > >
> > > @@ -1271,9 +1271,9 @@ static struct hv_pci_dev
> > > *new_pcichild_device(struct hv_pcibus_device *hbus,
> > > struct hv_pci_dev *hpdev;
> > > struct pci_child_message *res_req;
> > > struct q_res_req_compl comp_pkt;
> > > - union {
> > > - struct pci_packet init_packet;
> > > - u8 buffer[0x100];
> > > + struct {
> > > + struct pci_packet init_packet;
> > > + u8 buffer[sizeof(struct pci_child_message)];
> > > } pkt;
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > int ret;
> >
> > This change seems good to me, in that it's always a bad idea to use too
> much
> > stack. But this won't fix the problem with VMAP_STACK. The buffer could
> still
> > end up spanning two pages and the physical addresses of those pages
> would
> > possibly be discontiguous. Do you want to just refactor this so that it uses
> a
> > fixed buffer, one that will work with VMAP_STACK? Or is that coming in a
> future
> > patch?
>
> Hi Jake, I think the VMAP_STACK issue you mentioned should be another
> different
> issue fixed by Long Li: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/692447/.
>
> The VMAP_STACK issue is only an issue when we pass the buffer's physical
> address
> to the hypercall.
>
> Here the buffer is not passed to any hypercall. We just use
> vmbus_sendpacket()
> to memcpy the buffer into the per-channel ringbuffer.
>
> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
Yes, you're right. This patch looks fine to me. Sorry for confusing the two issues.
-- Jake
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
