On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 7:37 PM Sahil <icegambi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Friday, July 26, 2024 7:18:28 PM GMT+5:30 Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:58 AM Sahil Siddiq <icegambi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is the first patch in a series to add support for packed > > > virtqueues in vhost_shadow_virtqueue. This patch implements the > > > insertion of available buffers in the descriptor area. It takes > > > into account descriptor chains, but does not consider indirect > > > descriptors. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sahil Siddiq <sahil...@proton.me> > > > --- > > > Changes v1 -> v2: > > > * Split commit from RFC v1 into two commits. > > > * vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c > > > > > > (vhost_svq_add_packed): > > > - Merge with "vhost_svq_vring_write_descs_packed()" > > > - Remove "num == 0" check > > > > > > hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c > > > b/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c index fc5f408f77..c7b7e0c477 100644 > > > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c > > > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c > > > @@ -217,6 +217,91 @@ static bool vhost_svq_add_split(VhostShadowVirtqueue > > > *svq, > > > return true; > > > > > > } > > > > > > +static bool vhost_svq_add_packed(VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq, > > > + const struct iovec *out_sg, size_t > > > out_num, > > > + const struct iovec *in_sg, size_t in_num, > > > + unsigned *head) > > > +{ > > > + bool ok; > > > + uint16_t head_flags = 0; > > > + g_autofree hwaddr *sgs = g_new(hwaddr, out_num + in_num); > > > + > > > + *head = svq->vring_packed.next_avail_idx; > > > + > > > + /* We need some descriptors here */ > > > + if (unlikely(!out_num && !in_num)) { > > > + qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR, > > > + "Guest provided element with no descriptors"); > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + uint16_t id, curr, i; > > > + unsigned n; > > > + struct vring_packed_desc *descs = svq->vring_packed.vring.desc; > > > + > > > + i = *head; > > > + id = svq->free_head; > > > + curr = id; > > > + > > > + size_t num = out_num + in_num; > > > + > > > + ok = vhost_svq_translate_addr(svq, sgs, out_sg, out_num); > > > + if (unlikely(!ok)) { > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + ok = vhost_svq_translate_addr(svq, sgs + out_num, in_sg, in_num); > > > + if (unlikely(!ok)) { > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > + > > > > (sorry I missed this from the RFC v1) I think all of the above should > > be in the caller, isn't it? It is duplicated with split. > > I don't think this will be straightforward. While they perform the same > logical > step in both cases, their implementation is a little different. For example, > the > "sgs" pointer is created a little differently in both cases.
Do you mean because MAX() vs in_num+out_num? It is ok to convert both to the latter. > The parameters to > "vhost_svq_translate_addr" is also a little different. I think if they are > moved to > the caller, they will be in both "svq->is_packed" branches (in > "vhost_svq_add"). > I don't see any difference apart from calling it with in and out sgs separately or calling it for all of the array, am I missing something? > > Also, declarations should be at the beginning of blocks per QEMU > > coding style [1]. > > Sorry, I missed this. I'll rectify this. > No worries! You can run scripts/checkpatch.pl in QEMU for the next series, it should catch many of these small issues. Thanks!