[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 09/13] xen/pvcalls: implement sendmsg
> +static int __write_ring(struct pvcalls_data_intf *intf, > + struct pvcalls_data *data, > + struct iov_iter *msg_iter, > + int len) > +{ > + RING_IDX cons, prod, size, masked_prod, masked_cons; > + RING_IDX array_size = XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(PVCALLS_RING_ORDER); > + int32_t error; > + > + error = intf->out_error; > + if (error < 0) > + return error; > + cons = intf->out_cons; > + prod = intf->out_prod; > + /* read indexes before continuing */ > + virt_mb(); > + > + size = pvcalls_queued(prod, cons, array_size); > + if (size >= array_size) > + return 0; I thought you were going to return an error here? If this can only be due to someone messing up indexes is there a reason to continue trying to write? What are the chances that the index will get corrected? -boris > + if (len > array_size - size) > + len = array_size - size; > + > + masked_prod = pvcalls_mask(prod, array_size); > + masked_cons = pvcalls_mask(cons, array_size); > + > + if (masked_prod < masked_cons) { > + copy_from_iter(data->out + masked_prod, len, msg_iter); > + } else { > + if (len > array_size - masked_prod) { > + copy_from_iter(data->out + masked_prod, > + array_size - masked_prod, msg_iter); > + copy_from_iter(data->out, > + len - (array_size - masked_prod), > + msg_iter); > + } else { > + copy_from_iter(data->out + masked_prod, len, msg_iter); > + } > + } > + /* write to ring before updating pointer */ > + virt_wmb(); > + intf->out_prod += len; > + > + return len; > +} _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |