Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 02:21:09PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> On 5/17/23 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> > > > > > > sensitive API.
> > > > > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add test result(no obvious change):
> > > > > > > Before:
> > > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> > > > > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > real 0m14.463s
> > > > > > > user 0m6.437s
> > > > > > > sys 0m8.010s
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After:
> > > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> > > > > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > real 0m14.196s
> > > > > > > user 0m6.289s
> > > > > > > sys 0m7.885s
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > v1:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> > > > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract
> > > > > > > virtqueue related methods'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Something is still remained:
> > > > > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by
> > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
> > > > > > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why? These just set a flag?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
> > > > > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix
> > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
> > > >
> > > > I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
> > > static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct virtqueue *vq;
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
> > > vq->__break(vq);
> > > }
> > > spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> > > }
> >
> > why do this? backend knows they are broken.
> >
>
> I grep 'virtio_break_device' in the latest code:
> arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1147:virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
> arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1285:virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
> drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c:269:
> virtio_break_device(vcrypto->vdev);
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1251:
> virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1268:
> virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/virtio.c:489:
> virtio_break_device(vioch->vqueue->vdev);
> drivers/char/virtio_console.c:1956: virtio_break_device(vdev);
>
> Some virtio drivers use 'virtio_break_device'...
You should read the code and understand what it does,
not just grep things and make assumptions.
What virtio_break_device does is stop linux from sending
new requests.
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
> > > > > > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename
> > > > > > > them like
> > > > > > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix
> > > > > > > *virtqueue*,
> > > > > > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> > > > > > > zhenwei pi (2):
> > > > > > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
> > > > > > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +-
> > > > > > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441
> > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
> > > > > > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355
> > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 d
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On 5/17/23 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
v1 -> v2:
- Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
sensitive API.
- Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
Add test result(no obvious change):
Before:
time ./vringh_test --parallel
Using CPUS 0 and 191
Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
real0m14.463s
user0m6.437s
sys 0m8.010s
After:
time ./vringh_test --parallel
Using CPUS 0 and 191
Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
real0m14.196s
user0m6.289s
sys 0m7.885s
v1:
Hi,
3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related
methods'.
Something is still remained:
- __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
/vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
Why? These just set a flag?
Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
{
struct virtqueue *vq;
spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
vq->__break(vq);
}
spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
}
why do this? backend knows they are broken.
I grep 'virtio_break_device' in the latest code:
arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1147: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c:1285: virtio_break_device(&vu_dev->vdev);
drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_core.c:269:
virtio_break_device(vcrypto->vdev);
drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1251:
virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c:1268:
virtio_break_device(&vcdev->vdev);
drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/virtio.c:489:
virtio_break_device(vioch->vqueue->vdev);
drivers/char/virtio_console.c:1956: virtio_break_device(vdev);
Some virtio drivers use 'virtio_break_device'...
- virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
/virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
- there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
zhenwei pi (2):
virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +-
include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++
include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +---
4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1
--
zhenwei pi
--
zhenwei pi
--
zhenwei pi
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> > > > > sensitive API.
> > > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add test result(no obvious change):
> > > > > Before:
> > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> > > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> > > > >
> > > > > real 0m14.463s
> > > > > user 0m6.437s
> > > > > sys 0m8.010s
> > > > >
> > > > > After:
> > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel
> > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191
> > > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> > > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> > > > >
> > > > > real 0m14.196s
> > > > > user 0m6.289s
> > > > > sys 0m7.885s
> > > > >
> > > > > v1:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
> > > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
> > > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue
> > > > > related methods'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Something is still remained:
> > > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
> > > > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
> > > > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > Why? These just set a flag?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
> > > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
> >
> > I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
> >
>
> I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
> static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
> {
> struct virtqueue *vq;
>
> spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
> vq->__break(vq);
> }
> spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> }
why do this? backend knows they are broken.
> > > > > -
> > > > > virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
> > > > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them
> > > > > like
> > > > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> > > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix
> > > > > *virtqueue*,
> > > > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
> > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> > > > > zhenwei pi (2):
> > > > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
> > > > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> > > > >
> > > > >drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +-
> > > > >include/linux/virtio.h | 441
> > > > > +++
> > > > >include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
> > > > >tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +---
> > > > >4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > zhenwei pi
> >
>
> --
> zhenwei pi
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
v1 -> v2:
- Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
sensitive API.
- Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
Add test result(no obvious change):
Before:
time ./vringh_test --parallel
Using CPUS 0 and 191
Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
real0m14.463s
user0m6.437s
sys 0m8.010s
After:
time ./vringh_test --parallel
Using CPUS 0 and 191
Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
real0m14.196s
user0m6.289s
sys 0m7.885s
v1:
Hi,
3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related
methods'.
Something is still remained:
- __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
/vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?
Why? These just set a flag?
Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols
exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'.
I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all.
I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like:
static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
{
struct virtqueue *vq;
spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) {
vq->__break(vq);
}
spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
}
- virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
/virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
- there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
zhenwei pi (2):
virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +-
include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++
include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++
tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +---
4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1
--
zhenwei pi
--
zhenwei pi
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > v1 -> v2: > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance > > > sensitive API. > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio. > > > > > > Add test result(no obvious change): > > > Before: > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278 > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532 > > > > > > real 0m14.463s > > > user 0m6.437s > > > sys 0m8.010s > > > > > > After: > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347 > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292 > > > > > > real 0m14.196s > > > user 0m6.289s > > > sys 0m7.885s > > > > > > v1: > > > Hi, > > > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics': > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html > > > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue. > > > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue > > > related methods'. > > > > > > Something is still remained: > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal > > >virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break > > >/vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable? > > > > Why? These just set a flag? > > > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'. I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all. > > > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr > > >/virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like > > >vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable? > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*, > > >for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to > > >'vring_virtqueue_add_split'? > > > zhenwei pi (2): > > >virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods > > >tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test > > > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +- > > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++ > > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++ > > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +--- > > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > > > -- > zhenwei pi ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: v1 -> v2: - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance sensitive API. - Reduce changes in tools/virtio. Add test result(no obvious change): Before: time ./vringh_test --parallel Using CPUS 0 and 191 Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278 Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532 real0m14.463s user0m6.437s sys 0m8.010s After: time ./vringh_test --parallel Using CPUS 0 and 191 Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347 Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292 real0m14.196s user0m6.289s sys 0m7.885s v1: Hi, 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics': https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue. Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'. Something is still remained: - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable? Why? These just set a flag? Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'. - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable? - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*, for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'? zhenwei pi (2): virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +- include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++ include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++ tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +--- 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-) -- 2.20.1 -- zhenwei pi ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > v1 -> v2: > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance > sensitive API. > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio. > > Add test result(no obvious change): > Before: > time ./vringh_test --parallel > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278 > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532 > > real 0m14.463s > user 0m6.437s > sys 0m8.010s > > After: > time ./vringh_test --parallel > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347 > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292 > > real 0m14.196s > user 0m6.289s > sys 0m7.885s > > v1: > Hi, > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics': > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue. > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related > methods'. > > Something is still remained: > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable? Why? These just set a flag? > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable? > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*, > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'? > zhenwei pi (2): > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +- > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++ > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++ > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +--- > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.20.1 ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
