On 2011-10-17 17:48, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:28:02AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> This optimization was only required to keep KVM route usage low. Now >> that we solve that problem via lazy updates, we can drop the field. We >> still need interfaces to clear pending vectors, though (and we have to >> make use of them more broadly - but that's unrelated to this patch). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> > > Lazy updates should be an implementation detail. > IMO resource tracking of vectors makes sense > as an API. Making devices deal with pending > vectors as a concept, IMO, does not.
There is really no use for tracking the vector lifecycle once we have lazy updates (except for static routes). It's a way too invasive concept, and it's not needed for anything but KVM. If you want an example, check http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/70915 and compare it to the changes done to hpet in this series. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
