On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > > Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback? > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are requesting. > Oh, just some trivial things (e.g. use a field in the > header, hdr->chunks to indicate the number of chunks > in the payload) that wasn't confirmed. > > I will prepare the new version with fixing the agreed issues, > and we can continue to discuss those parts if you still find > them improper. > > > > > > The interface looks reasonable now, even though there's > > a way to make it even simpler if we can limit chunk size > > to 2G (in fact 4G - 1). Do you think we can live with this > > limitation? > Yes, I think we can. So, is it good to change to use the > previous 64-bit chunk format (52-bit base + 12-bit size)?
This isn't what I meant. virtio ring has descriptors with a 64 bit address and 32 bit size. If size < 4g is not a significant limitation, why not just use that to pass address/size in a standard s/g list, possibly using INDIRECT? > > > > > But the code still needs some cleanup. > > > > OK. We'll also still to discuss your comments in the patch 05. > > Best, > Wei
