On 5/12/23 6:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:51:21PM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-04 at 14:51 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:08:54PM -0400, Feng Liu wrote:
On 2023-05-04 a.m.9:50, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
The referenced patch calls set_vq_affinity without checking if the op is
valid. This patch adds the check.
Fixes: 3dad56823b53 ("virtio-vdpa: Support interrupt affinity spreading
mechanism")
Reviewed-by: Gal Pressman <g...@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatu...@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
index eb6aee8c06b2..989e2d7184ce 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
@@ -385,7 +385,9 @@ static int virtio_vdpa_find_vqs(struct virtio_device
*vdev, unsigned int nvqs,
err = PTR_ERR(vqs[i]);
goto err_setup_vq;
}
- ops->set_vq_affinity(vdpa, i, &masks[i]);
+
+ if (ops->set_vq_affinity)
+ ops->set_vq_affinity(vdpa, i, &masks[i]);
if ops->set_vq_affinity is NULL, should give an error code to err, and
return err
Given we ignore return code, hardly seems like a critical thing to do.
Is it really important? affinity is an optimization isn't it?
set_vq_affinity is optional so it's not an error if the op is not implemented.
Is there anything else that needs to be done for this fix?
Thanks,
Dragos
no, it's queued already.
Are these queued into a repo that is accessible? I haven't seen
activity in the vhost.git where I would have expected it. After
stumbling over and debugging this same problem, I was happy to see it
fixed, and I'd like to pull from a repo that has the current updates.
Thanks,
sln
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
