Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: >> We're pretty sloppy in virtio right now about phys_ram_base >> assumptions. This >> patch is an incremental step between what we have today and a full >> blown DMA >> API. I backported the DMA API but the performance impact was not >> acceptable >> to me. There's only a slight performance impact with this particular >> patch. >> >> Since we're no longer assuming guest physical memory is contiguous, >> we need >> a more complex way to validate the memory regions than just checking >> if it's >> within ram_size. >> > > Applied patches 1-2. Since patch 4 is under contention on qemu-devel, > and 3 and 5 depend on it, I'd like to get the can_receive semantic > change accepted first.
I'll send it upstream, but I think it's much less of a divergence than the current virtio_net_poll hacks. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
