search for: __zerocopy_sg_from_iter

On Sun, 2023-07-30 at 11:59 +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: > +static int virtio_transport_fill_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, > + struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *info, > + size_t len, > + bool zcopy) > +{ > + if (zcopy) { > + return __zerocopy_sg_from_iter(info->msg, NULL, skb, > + &info->msg->msg_iter, > + len); > + } else { No need for an else statement after 'return' > + void *payload; > + int err; > + > + payload = skb_put(skb, len); > + err = memcpy_from_msg(payload, info-&g...

...iy Krasnov wrote: > > > +static int virtio_transport_fill_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, > > > + struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *info, > > > + size_t len, > > > + bool zcopy) > > > +{ > > > + if (zcopy) { > > > + return __zerocopy_sg_from_iter(info->msg, NULL, skb, > > > + &info->msg->msg_iter, > > > + len); > > > + } else { > > > > > > No need for an else statement after 'return' > > > > > + void *payload; > > > + int err;...

...t;>> buffer are locked in memory by 'get_user_pages()'. Second thing that >>> this patch does is replace type of skb owning: instead of calling >>> 'skb_set_owner_sk_safe()' it calls 'skb_set_owner_w()'. Reason of this >>> change is that '__zerocopy_sg_from_iter()' increments 'sk_wmem_alloc' >>> of socket, so to decrease this field correctly proper skb destructor is >>> needed: 'sock_wfree()'. This destructor is set by 'skb_set_owner_w()'. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov a...