Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 10/13] xen/pvcalls: implement recvmsg

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/19/2017 09:38 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> +
>>> +int pvcalls_front_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t 
>>> len,
>>> +                int flags)
>>> +{
>>> +   struct pvcalls_bedata *bedata;
>>> +   int ret;
>>> +   struct sock_mapping *map;
>>> +
>>> +   if (flags & (MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC|MSG_ERRQUEUE|MSG_OOB|MSG_TRUNC))
>>> +           return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> +
>>> +   pvcalls_enter();
>>> +   if (!pvcalls_front_dev) {
>>> +           pvcalls_exit();
>>> +           return -ENOTCONN;
>>> +   }
>>> +   bedata = dev_get_drvdata(&pvcalls_front_dev->dev);
>>> +
>>> +   map = (struct sock_mapping *) sock->sk->sk_send_head;
>>> +   if (!map) {
>>> +           pvcalls_exit();
>>> +           return -ENOTSOCK;
>>> +   }
>>> +
>>> +   mutex_lock(&map->active.in_mutex);
>>> +   if (len > XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(PVCALLS_RING_ORDER))
>>> +           len = XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(PVCALLS_RING_ORDER);
>>> +
>>> +   while (!(flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) && !pvcalls_front_read_todo(map)) {
>>> +           wait_event_interruptible(map->active.inflight_conn_req,
>>> +                                    pvcalls_front_read_todo(map));
>>> +   }
>>> +   ret = __read_ring(map->active.ring, &map->active.data,
>>> +                     &msg->msg_iter, len, flags);
>>> +
>>> +   if (ret > 0)
>>> +           notify_remote_via_irq(map->active.irq);
>>> +   if (ret == 0)
>>> +           ret = -EAGAIN;
>> Why not 0? The manpage says:
>>
>>        EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK
>>               The  socket  is  marked nonblocking and the receive
>> operation would block, or a receive timeout
>>               had been set and the timeout expired before data was
>> received.  POSIX.1 allows either error  to
>>               be  returned  for  this case, and does not require these
>> constants to have the same value, so a
>>               portable application should check for both possibilities.
>>
>>
>> I don't think either of these conditions is true here.
>>
>> (Again, should have noticed this earlier, sorry)
> In case the socket is MSG_DONTWAIT, then we should return -EAGAIN here.
> However, it is true that if the socket is not MSG_DONTWAIT, then
> returning 0 would make more sense.
>
> So I'll do:
>
> if (ret == 0)
>     ret = (flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) ? -EAGAIN : 0;

Sure. With that

Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel