From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754325AbaCMKnb (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:43:31 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:16809 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753984AbaCMKn1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:43:27 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,646,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="109512222" Message-ID: <1394707404.25873.36.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy From: Ian Campbell To: David Miller CC: , , , , , , Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:43:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1394638843.3457.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> References: <1394142511-14827-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com> <20140307.160552.282750558679341658.davem@davemloft.net> <531B2B3E.5050800@citrix.com> <20140308.185759.494043114567727021.davem@davemloft.net> <1394638843.3457.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80] X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 15:40 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 18:57 -0500, David Miller wrote: > > From: Zoltan Kiss > > Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:50 +0000 > > > > > Maybe you mixed up mine with that? But that's also not eligible to be > > > applied yet. > > > > I can always revert the series if there are major objections. > > Zoltan -- does this patch series suffer from/expose the confusion > regarding RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS which we are discussing > separately on xen-devel? If the answer is yes then I think this series > should be reverted for the time being because there seems to be some > fairly fundamental questions about the semantics of that macro. The answer was yes but we think this is fixed by "xen-netback: Schedule NAPI from dealloc thread instead of callback" sent last night. I'll review that next. > If the answer is no then I will endeavour to review this version of the > series ASAP (hopefully tomorrow) and determine if I have any other major > objections which would warrant a revert. There was a few things which I would have preferred to see fixed (or understood) but what's done is done and I don't think any of it warrants a revert. I commented on a few things which I was sure about or which I'd like to see fixed in a follow up. I also let a bunch of minor stuff like coding style nits slip since it doesn't seem worth the churn now that it is in. Thanks, Ian.