[Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 33/33] Add Xen virtual block device driver.

[boutcher@xxxxxxxxxx (Dave Boutcher)]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:33 -0700, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> 
> The block device frontend driver allows the kernel to access block
> devices exported exported by a virtual machine containing a physical
> block device driver.

First, I think this belongs in drivers/block (and the network driver
belongs in drivers/net).  If we're going to bring xen to the party,
lets not leave it hiding out in a corner.

> +static void connect(struct blkfront_info *);
> +static void blkfront_closing(struct xenbus_device *);
> +static int blkfront_remove(struct xenbus_device *);
> +static int talk_to_backend(struct xenbus_device *, struct blkfront_info *);
> +static int setup_blkring(struct xenbus_device *, struct blkfront_info *);
> +
> +static void kick_pending_request_queues(struct blkfront_info *);
> +
> +static irqreturn_t blkif_int(int irq, void *dev_id, struct pt_regs *ptregs);
> +static void blkif_restart_queue(void *arg);
> +static void blkif_recover(struct blkfront_info *);
> +static void blkif_completion(struct blk_shadow *);
> +static void blkif_free(struct blkfront_info *, int);

I'm pretty sure you can rearrange the code to get rid of the forward
references. 

> +/**
> + * We are reconnecting to the backend, due to a suspend/resume, or a backend
> + * driver restart.  We tear down our blkif structure and recreate it, but
> + * leave the device-layer structures intact so that this is transparent to 
> the
> + * rest of the kernel.
> + */
> +static int blkfront_resume(struct xenbus_device *dev)
> +{
> +     struct blkfront_info *info = dev->dev.driver_data;
> +     int err;
> +
> +     DPRINTK("blkfront_resume: %s\n", dev->nodename);
> +
> +     blkif_free(info, 1);
> +
> +     err = talk_to_backend(dev, info);
> +     if (!err)
> +             blkif_recover(info);
> +
> +     return err;
> +}
Should blkfront_resume grab blkif_io_lock?

> +     switch (backend_state) {
> +     case XenbusStateUnknown:
> +     case XenbusStateInitialising:
> +     case XenbusStateInitWait:
> +     case XenbusStateInitialised:
> +     case XenbusStateClosed:

This actually should get fixed elsewhere, but SillyCaps???

> +static inline int GET_ID_FROM_FREELIST(
> +     struct blkfront_info *info)
> +{
> +     unsigned long free = info->shadow_free;
> +     BUG_ON(free > BLK_RING_SIZE);
> +     info->shadow_free = info->shadow[free].req.id;
> +     info->shadow[free].req.id = 0x0fffffee; /* debug */
> +     return free;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void ADD_ID_TO_FREELIST(
> +     struct blkfront_info *info, unsigned long id)
> +{
> +     info->shadow[id].req.id  = info->shadow_free;
> +     info->shadow[id].request = 0;
> +     info->shadow_free = id;
> +}

A real nit..but why are these routines SHOUTING?

> +int blkif_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
> +{
> +     struct blkfront_info *info = inode->i_bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> +     info->users--;
> +     if (info->users == 0) {

Hrm...this strikes me as racey.  Don't you need at least a memory
barrier here to handle SMP?


> +static struct xlbd_major_info xvd_major_info = {
> +     .major = 201,
> +     .type = &xvd_type_info
> +};

I've forgotten what the current policy is around new major numbers. 


Dave B

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