> > On 2019/12/4 16:33, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > > >> From: Pan Nengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com> > >> > >> Devices tend to maintain vq pointers, allow deleting them trough a vq > >> pointer. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com> > >> --- > >> Changes v2 to v1: > >> - add a new function virtio_delete_queue to cleanup vq through a vq > >> pointer > >> --- > >> hw/virtio/virtio.c | 16 +++++++++++----- > >> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 2 ++ > >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> index 04716b5..6de3cfd 100644 > >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> @@ -2330,17 +2330,23 @@ VirtQueue *virtio_add_queue(VirtIODevice *vdev, > >> int > >> queue_size, > >> return &vdev->vq[i]; > >> } > >> > >> +void virtio_delete_queue(VirtQueue *vq) > >> +{ > >> + vq->vring.num = 0; > >> + vq->vring.num_default = 0; > >> + vq->handle_output = NULL; > >> + vq->handle_aio_output = NULL; > >> + g_free(vq->used_elems); > >> + vq->used_elems = NULL; > >> +} > >> + > >> void virtio_del_queue(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n) > >> { > >> if (n < 0 || n >= VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > >> abort(); > >> } > >> > >> - vdev->vq[n].vring.num = 0; > >> - vdev->vq[n].vring.num_default = 0; > >> - vdev->vq[n].handle_output = NULL; > >> - vdev->vq[n].handle_aio_output = NULL; > >> - g_free(vdev->vq[n].used_elems); > >> + virtio_delete_queue(&vdev->vq[n]); > >> } > >> > >> static void virtio_set_isr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int value) > >> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> index c32a815..e18756d 100644 > >> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> @@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ VirtQueue *virtio_add_queue(VirtIODevice *vdev, int > >> queue_size, > >> > >> void virtio_del_queue(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > >> > >> +void virtio_delete_queue(VirtQueue *vq); > >> + > >> void virtqueue_push(VirtQueue *vq, const VirtQueueElement *elem, > >> unsigned int len); > >> void virtqueue_flush(VirtQueue *vq, unsigned int count); > >> -- > >> 2.7.2.windows.1 > >> > >> > > Overall it ooks good to me. > > > > Just one point: e.g in virtio_rng: "virtio_rng_device_unrealize" function > > We are doing : virtio_del_queue(vdev, 0); > > > > One can directly call "virtio_delete_queue". It can become confusing > > to call multiple functions for same purpose. Instead, Can we make > > "virtio_delete_queue" static inline? > > > yes, It will be a little confused, but I think it will have the same > problem if we make "virtio_delete_queue" static inline. We can directly > call it aslo. (e.g virtio-serial-bus.c virtio-balloon.c). > > How about replacing the function name to make it more clear (e.g > virtio_delete_queue -> virtio_queue_cleanup) ? It's too similar between > "virtio_del_queue" and "virtio_delete_queue".
I am just thinking if we need these two separate functions. Yes, changing name of virtio_delete_queue -> virtio_queue_cleanup should be good enough. Thanks, Pankaj > > > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagu...@redhat.com> > > > >> > >> > > > > > > . > > > > >