[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] virtio-net: Fix receive buffer size calculation text
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:18:59PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6:08 PM > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; > > mst@redhat.com > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>; xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com; > > yuri.benditovich@daynix.com > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] virtio-net: Fix receive buffer size calculation text > > > > On Tue, Jan 16 2024, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > >> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4:33 PM > > >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>; > > >> virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; > > >> mst@redhat.com > > >> Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>; xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com; > > >> yuri.benditovich@daynix.com > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] virtio-net: Fix receive buffer size > > >> calculation text > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 16 2024, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> >> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > > >> >> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 10:14 PM > > >> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jan 15 2024, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > >> >> > +The driver MUST consider size of field \field{struct > > >> >> > +virtio_net_hdr} > > >> >> > +20 bytes if VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT is negotiated, and 12 > > >> >> > +bytes if > > >> >> not. > > >> >> > + > > >> >> > > >> >> Requiring the driver to consider the size of something to be its > > >> >> actual size seems a bit odd :) I don't think we need this, as the > > >> >> length can be derived from looking at the definitions, and is > > >> >> already spelled out explicitly, if you consider my suggestion above. > > >> > We need this because tx side also needs to refer to the > > >> > virtio_net_hdr in > > >> patch 2 to be same as that of the rx side. > > >> > And hence, this normative sets base line for tx side too. Relying > > >> > on rest of the > > >> receive packet normative is not enough. > > >> > > >> Hm, why? If struct virtio_net_hdr is well-defined, its size is > > >> well-defined as well, and we do not need to state it explictly? > > > Because, > > > the size of virtio_net_hdr is derived from the rx side features. > > > Today there is no normative line that says that even though you are using A, > > B, C Rx features, due to which your tx side virtio_net_hdr also changes. > > > The 2nd patch in this series adds this explicit normative as explained in the > > cover letter. > > > > Let's step back a bit. > > > > struct virtio_net_hdr is defined at the beginning of the "Device Operation" > > section; the definition clearly says that the last three fields depend on > > VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT being negotiated. The device and the driver > > agree on whether HASH_REPORT is negotiated, and therefore should also > > agree on the size of virtio_net_hdr? > > > Do you imply that device operation description is enough to not add normative? > If so, for this case and possibly new things if we write as device operation, would it be enough? > > > Or is the problem that we did not state explicitly that the last three fields of > > virtio_net_hdr do not exist without HASH_REPORT (and are not merely > > invalid)? If yes, we should spell this out, instead of adding normative > > statements about what the size of virtio_net_hdr should be considered to be. > This suggested normative is added in this patch. > > > If virtio_net_hdr has a fixed size, we shouldn't need the second patch, either. > The fact that HASH_REPORT is only for the rx, if we have to go back in time, there is no need for the tx to force also to follow the rx virtio_net_hdr. > There is no explicit normative indicating the virtio_net_hdr for the TX is forced by the RX even though it has no relation to hash report. > > If you say device operation is enough, than I am sort of lost of when normative is needed, and when device operation is enough. Generally we start adding normatives when we see that something is unclear. But I think generally I agree with Parav, if someone has the time to write the normative, it's all good. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]