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 [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2020/6/23 上午12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

On 2020/6/11 下午7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

   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