Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>>
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets
> whenever th
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets
whenever the
receiver is disabled or when there are descriptors available i
Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> Note that flow control still makes sense since it allows us to buffer
> some packets if the guest is scheduled out. But we can't use it as
> the primary mechanism since it won't exist with multiqueue NICs (where
> the virtio descriptors are fed to driver).
>
... are fed t
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets
>>> whenever the
>>> receiver is disabled or when there are descriptors available in the
>>> ring.
>>>
>>> I
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets whenever the
>> receiver is disabled or when there are descriptors available in the ring.
>>
>> I think the logic ought to be to allow pa
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:40:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets whenever the
> receiver is disabled or when there are descriptors available in the ring.
>
> I think the logic ought to be to allow packets whenever the receiver is
The current logic of the can_receive handler is to allow packets whenever the
receiver is disabled or when there are descriptors available in the ring.
I think the logic ought to be to allow packets whenever the receiver is enabled
and there are descriptors available in the ring.
Signed-off-by: A
