WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: netback commit history

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: netback commit history
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:26:58 +0100
Cc: Xu <dongxiao.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dongxiao
Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:27:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E788F710200007800056C38@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <4E788F710200007800056C38@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 12:04 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> with the upstream netback introduction consisting of a single big commit
> I wonder whether you could point me to where the full history of it is.

Yeah, that was a bit annoying, luckily I had the foresight to post where
the history was. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/xen/devel/202139
says it is:
        git://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/linux-2.6.git 
upstream/dom0/backend/netback-history 

> I'm asking particularly in the context of us being asked to add a safety
> check similar to the vif->netbk != NULL one at the beginning of
> xenvif_start_xmit() (also in xenvif_interrupt(), but there we have a
> similar check in place), which hadn't been in the legacy tree (obviously)
> nor in the original multiple-tasklets patch that I retained a copy of.

Seems to have come from bc05ada1283eb583c9789c27429af36b034c4a74 in that
history tree and was a conversion from a check for group == -1. That
commit changes from storing a group index to a group pointer so I think
it's roughly equivalent from a validity point of view.

The original group == -1 check appears to be in the 2.6.32.x pvops
kernels at least, I expect it is also in the multiple tasklet patch
which you have as well?

>  That
> is, I'd like to understand the reasons for this check as it seems wrong
> to me to have to do it there - I'd rather think that if an interface got
> disabled, execution shouldn't even reach that function anymore.

Yes, I'd think that too but I don't really know. Maybe Dongxiao
remembers why he added it?

> One thing I wonder about in this context is whether the
> netif_stop_queue() call from xenvif_close() shouldn't happen before
> xenvif_down() (not the least for reasons of symmetry with
> xenvif_open()).

I seem to recall looking at that too, it was the same in the old kernels
too and I didn't know why so I avoided touching it (I was doing too much
other cleanup at the time to risk it).

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>