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] [PATCH 5/6] xen/netback: try to pull a minimum of 72 bytes i

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] xen/netback: try to pull a minimum of 72 bytes into the skb data area
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:10 +0000
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Steven Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:51:03 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1266943615.11737.6467.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <1266943615.11737.6467.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Steven Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
 drivers/xen/netback/netback.c |    9 +++------
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c b/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
index e668704..0bc6398 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
@@ -116,13 +116,10 @@ static inline int netif_page_index(struct page *pg)
 /*
  * This is the amount of packet we copy rather than map, so that the
  * guest can't fiddle with the contents of the headers while we do
- * packet processing on them (netfilter, routing, etc).  This could
- * probably do with being larger, since 1) 64-bytes isn't necessarily
- * long enough to cover a full christmas-tree ip+tcp header, let alone
- * packet contents, and 2) the data is probably in cache anyway
- * (though perhaps some other cpu's cache).
+ * packet processing on them (netfilter, routing, etc). 72 is enough
+ * to cover TCP+IP headers including options.
  */
-#define PKT_PROT_LEN 64
+#define PKT_PROT_LEN 72
 
 static struct pending_tx_info {
        struct xen_netif_tx_request req;
-- 
1.5.6.5


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