Re: [kvm-devel] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:55:25PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Networking hardware generally services descriptors in a FIFO manner. > virtio may not (for example, it may offload copies of larger packets to > a dma engine such as I/OAT, resulting in a delay, but copy smaller > packets immediat

Re: [kvm-devel] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Rusty Russell wrote: >> >>> Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct >>> virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an >>> index into that. Then we can trivially ad

Re: [kvm-devel] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct > > virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an > > index into that. Then we can trivially add a corresponding bit array. > > Th

Re: [kvm-devel] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-03 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: > Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct > virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an > index into that. Then we can trivially add a corresponding bit array. > > That may force the virtio backend to do things it doesn't wan