Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:00:57AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:51 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020/6/23 äå12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >> On 2020/6/11 äå7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>>    static void vhost_vq_free_iovecs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > >>>    {
> > >>>     kfree(vq->descs);
> > >>> @@ -394,6 +400,9 @@ static long vhost_dev_alloc_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > >>>     for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> > >>>             vq = dev->vqs[i];
> > >>>             vq->max_descs = dev->iov_limit;
> > >>> +           if (vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq) < 0) {
> > >>> +                   return -EINVAL;
> > >>> +           }
> > >> This check breaks vdpa which set iov_limit to zero. Consider iov_limit is
> > >> meaningless to vDPA, I wonder we can skip the test when device doesn't use
> > >> worker.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > > It doesn't need iovecs at all, right?
> > >
> > > -- MST
> >
> >
> > Yes, so we may choose to bypass the iovecs as well.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> 
> I think that the kmalloc_array returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR for all of them
> in that case, so I didn't bother to skip the kmalloc_array parts.
> Would you prefer to skip them all and let them NULL? Or have I
> misunderstood what you mean?
> 
> Thanks!

Sorry about being unclear. I just meant that it seems cleaner
to check for iov_limit being 0 not for worker thread.

-- 
MST