Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Rusty, > > The linux-next kernel was failing my virtio-console test suite for a > while. I looked into it today, and it's due to the > virtqueue_add_buf() change that doesn't return > 0 values anymore. I > found your commit that adjusts virtio_console.c, but you missed one > instance where the return value mattered, and as a result not enough > buffers were queued for the host to send in data. > > This resulted in the port's name to be not populated in sysfs, which > meant udev didn't create any symlinks in /dev/virtio-ports/. > > I've just updated your commit with the small diff (attached below). > Please put this commit after > > commit e794093a52cdfef09b3fdb6294b75ab8cacb30a8 > Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Oct 16 23:56:14 2012 +1030 > > virtio_net: don't rely on virtqueue_add_buf() returning capacity. > > and before > > commit 08d088e8357b3c031db7de006247f613c7f136ab > Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Oct 16 23:56:15 2012 +1030 > > virtio: make virtqueue_add_buf() returning 0 on success, not capacity. > > in the pull request you send so that there's no regression in > virtio_console on bisection. > > (commit ids from linux-next/master). I will append it for now, then fold it before pushing to Linus. I try not to rebase linux-next until just before the push. Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
