On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:17:46AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>>This is something I've thought about while writing the code, the reason I > >>>keep it as one function body is that: > >>> > >>> 1. This function is very performance sensitive, and we need full control > >>> of > >>> code ordering (You can compare with the current performance with the > >>> mrg_rxbuf feature turned on to see the difference). > >> > >>Will inline functions help? > > > > > >Optimization in this patch actually reorganizes the code from its logic, > >so it's not suitable for making separated functions. > > > >I'll explain this in v2. > > I agree with Yuanhan. > Inline functions should not break the optimizations. > IMHO, this is mandatory for the patch to be accepted.
Yes. > It seems you are not the only one facing the issue: > https://github.com/YanVugenfirer/kvm-guest-drivers-windows/issues/70 > > So a dedicated fix is really important. Yes. > > >This patch doesn't try to fix this issue, it rewrites the logic totally, > >and somehow fixes this issue. > > > >Do you think integrating this whole patch into the stable branch will work? > >Personally I think it makes more sense. > > No. > We don't even know why/how it fixes the Windows issue, which would be > the first thing to understand before integrating a fix in stable branch. Yes. > > And the stable branch is not meant for integrating such big reworks, > it is only meant to fix bugs. Yes. > The risk of regressions have to be avoided as much as possible. Yes. --yliu
