On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 04:28:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:02:48 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 05:43:07PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > > > b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > > > index 551bca6fef24..925be5942895 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > > > @@ -1078,7 +1078,7 @@ int chtls_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> > > > *msg, size_t size)
> > > > bool merge;
> > > >
> > > > if (page)
> > > > - pg_size <<= compound_order(page);
> > > > + pg_size = page_size(page);
> > > > if (off < pg_size &&
> > > > skb_can_coalesce(skb, i, page, off)) {
> > > > merge = 1;
> > > > @@ -1105,8 +1105,7 @@ int chtls_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> > > > *msg, size_t size)
> > > >
> > > > __GFP_NORETRY,
> > > > order);
> > > > if (page)
> > > > - pg_size <<=
> > > > -
> > > > compound_order(page);
> > > > + pg_size <<= order;
> > >
> > > Looking at the code I see pg_size should be PAGE_SIZE right before this
> > > so why
> > > not just use the new call and remove the initial assignment?
> >
> > This driver is really convoluted. I wasn't certain I wouldn't break it
> > in some horrid way. I made larger changes to it originally, then they
> > touched this part of the driver and I had to rework the patch to apply
> > on top of their changes. So I did something more minimal.
> >
> > This, on top of what's in Andrew's tree, would be my guess, but I don't
> > have the hardware.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > index 925be5942895..d4eb0fcd04c7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/chelsio/chtls/chtls_io.c
> > @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ int chtls_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> > *msg, size_t size)
> > } else {
> > int i = skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
> > struct page *page = TCP_PAGE(sk);
> > - int pg_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > + unsigned int pg_size = 0;
> > int off = TCP_OFF(sk);
> > bool merge;
> >
> > @@ -1092,7 +1092,7 @@ int chtls_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> > *msg, size_t size)
> > if (page && off == pg_size) {
> > put_page(page);
> > TCP_PAGE(sk) = page = NULL;
> > - pg_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > + pg_size = 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (!page) {
> > @@ -1104,15 +1104,13 @@ int chtls_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> > *msg, size_t size)
> > __GFP_NOWARN |
> > __GFP_NORETRY,
> > order);
> > - if (page)
> > - pg_size <<= order;
> > }
> > if (!page) {
> > page = alloc_page(gfp);
> > - pg_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > }
> > if (!page)
> > goto wait_for_memory;
> > + pg_size = page_size(page);
> > off = 0;
> > }
>
> I didn't do anything with this. I assume the original patch (which has
> been in -next since July 22) is good and the above is merely a cleanup?
Yes, just a cleanup. Since Atul didn't offer an opinion, I assume
he doesn't care.
