Re: [PATCH] hv_sock: use HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE instead of PAGE_SIZE_4K

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:06:06 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:02:03AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:  
> >>From: Himadri Pandya <himadrispandya@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 10:11 PM  
> >>>
> >>>Older windows hosts require the hv_sock ring buffer to be defined
> >>>using 4K pages. This was achieved by using the symbol PAGE_SIZE_4K
> >>>defined specifically for this purpose. But now we have a new symbol
> >>>HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE defined in hyperv-tlfs which can be used for this.
> >>>
> >>>This patch removes the definition of symbol PAGE_SIZE_4K and replaces
> >>>its usage with the symbol HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE. This patch also aligns
> >>>sndbuf and rcvbuf to hyper-v specific page size using HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE
> >>>instead of the guest page size(PAGE_SIZE) as hyper-v expects the page
> >>>size to be 4K and it might not be the case on ARM64 architecture.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Himadri Pandya <himadri18.07@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>---
> >>> net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> >>>index f2084e3f7aa4..ecb5d72d8010 100644
> >>>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> >>>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> >>>@@ -13,15 +13,16 @@
> >>> #include <linux/hyperv.h>
> >>> #include <net/sock.h>
> >>> #include <net/af_vsock.h>
> >>>+#include <asm/hyperv-tlfs.h>
> >>>  
> >>
> >>Reviewed-by:  Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>This patch depends on a prerequisite patch in
> >>
> >>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/hyperv
> >>
> >>that defines HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE.  
> >
> >David, the above prerequisite patch is now upstream, so this patch
> >should be good to go. Would you take it through the net tree or should I
> >do it via the hyperv tree?  
> 
> Ping?

Is this a fix? It's slightly unclear from the description of the patch.
I think the best course of action would be reposting it again, with
either [PATCH net] in the subject and a Fixes tag if it's a fix, or
[PATCH net-next] otherwise.