On 10/22/2015 5:14 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
Where is i being initialized? It was here but you removed it. Are you
using i without initializing it?
Sorry, the initialization was put into patch 10 by mistake. "i" is
assigned with "tx_ring->next_to_clean".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On 10/22/2015 8:58 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Do you really need to play the shifting games?
Can't you just reset everything and re-initialize the rings?
It's slower but way less intrusive.
Also removes the need to track writes into rings.
Shift ring is to avoid losing those packets in the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:37:40AM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> When transmit a package, the end transmit desc of package
> indicates whether package is sent already. Current code records
> the end desc's pointer in the next_to_watch of struct tx buffer.
> This code will be broken if shifting desc ri
On 10/21/2015 09:37 AM, Lan Tianyu wrote:
When transmit a package, the end transmit desc of package
indicates whether package is sent already. Current code records
the end desc's pointer in the next_to_watch of struct tx buffer.
This code will be broken if shifting desc ring after migration.
The
When transmit a package, the end transmit desc of package
indicates whether package is sent already. Current code records
the end desc's pointer in the next_to_watch of struct tx buffer.
This code will be broken if shifting desc ring after migration.
The pointer will be invalid. This patch is to re
