>>> On 13.11.17 at 11:33, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Joao Martins [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 10 November 2017 19:35
>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>> @@ -96,6 +96,11 @@ unsigned int xenvif_hash_cache_size =
>> XENVIF_HASH_CACHE_SIZE_DEFAULT;
>> module_param_named(hash_cache_size, xenvif_hash_cache_size, uint,
>> 0644);
Isn't the "owner-write" permission here ...
>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c
>> @@ -168,11 +168,14 @@ static void xenvif_rx_copy_add(struct
>> xenvif_queue *queue,
>> struct xen_netif_rx_request *req,
>> unsigned int offset, void *data, size_t len)
>> {
>> + unsigned int batch_size;
>> struct gnttab_copy *op;
>> struct page *page;
>> struct xen_page_foreign *foreign;
>>
>> - if (queue->rx_copy.num == COPY_BATCH_SIZE)
>> + batch_size = min(xenvif_copy_batch_size, queue->rx_copy.size);
>
> Surely queue->rx_copy.size and xenvif_copy_batch_size are always identical?
> Why do you need this statement (and hence stack variable)?
... the answer to your question?
Jan
