On 09/26/2013 12:30 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 09/23/2013 03:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Currently, even if the
On 09/23/2013 03:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if
upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if
upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice
later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all
On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if
upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this
choice
later. This could be
Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if
upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice
later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all
conditions at one time before.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang