On Friday 11 January 2008 02:51:58 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> What about the following patch:
Looks correct and in fact pretty orthodox.
I've folded this in, thanks!
Rusty.
-
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplac
Am Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> > Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > > To me this points to doing interrupt suppression a different way. If
we
> > > have a ->disable_cb() virtio
Am Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > To me this points to doing interrupt suppression a different way. If we
> > have a ->disable_cb() virtio function, and call it before we call
> > netif_rx_schedule, does that f
Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> To me this points to doing interrupt suppression a different way. If we
> have a ->disable_cb() virtio function, and call it before we call
> netif_rx_schedule, does that fix it?
The fix looks good and I agree with it.
There is one problem
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 23:22:37 Dor Laor wrote:
> btw: I checked your Linux tree and found it a bit old, there was no tx
> coalescing timer, it's probably good
> for 2.6.24. Do you plan to post patchset for 25 windows?
> Thanks,
> Dor
Hmm, should be updated now. Will be pushing all these vir
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 24 December 2007 10:19:19 Dor Laor wrote:
>
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Looks good to me. The only thing is the naming.. Maybe one can find
>> better name than [dis|en]able_cb since
>> it is more like disable interrupts than disable_cb and enable_cb is more
>> lik
On Monday 24 December 2007 10:19:19 Dor Laor wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> Looks good to me. The only thing is the naming.. Maybe one can find
> better name than [dis|en]able_cb since
> it is more like disable interrupts than disable_cb and enable_cb is more
> like run_callbacks (and enable inter
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 23:12:05 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>> Rusty, Anthony, Dor,
>>
>> I need your brain power :-)
>>
>> On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent
>> Avi's git) which do not occur on single processor guests:
>>
>> kern
On Friday 14 December 2007 23:12:05 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Rusty, Anthony, Dor,
>
> I need your brain power :-)
>
> On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent
> Avi's git) which do not occur on single processor guests:
>
> kernel BUG at /space/kvm/drivers/virtio/
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Rusty, Anthony, Dor,
>
> I need your brain power :-)
>
> On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent Avi's
> git) which do not occur on single processor guests:
>
> kernel BUG at /space/kvm/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:228!
> illegal operati
Rusty, Anthony, Dor,
I need your brain power :-)
On smp guests I have seen a problem with virtio (the version in curent Avi's
git) which do not occur on single processor guests:
kernel BUG at /space/kvm/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:228!
illegal operation: 0001 [#1]
Modules linked in: ipv6
CPU:
11 matches
Mail list logo