On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:47:20PM +, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 13:43, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:40 AM Durrant, Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/12/2021 11:34, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > > commit f37f29d31488 "xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling" hard
> >
On 26/01/2022 13:43, Jason Andryuk wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:40 AM Durrant, Paul wrote:
On 10/12/2021 11:34, Jason Andryuk wrote:
commit f37f29d31488 "xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling" hard
coded setting req.count = 1 during initial field setup before the main
loop. This misse
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:40 AM Durrant, Paul wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2021 11:34, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > commit f37f29d31488 "xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling" hard
> > coded setting req.count = 1 during initial field setup before the main
> > loop. This missed a subtlety that an early exit
On 10/12/2021 11:34, Jason Andryuk wrote:
commit f37f29d31488 "xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling" hard
coded setting req.count = 1 during initial field setup before the main
loop. This missed a subtlety that an early exit from the loop when
there are no ioreqs to process, would have req.c
commit f37f29d31488 "xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling" hard
coded setting req.count = 1 during initial field setup before the main
loop. This missed a subtlety that an early exit from the loop when
there are no ioreqs to process, would have req.count == 0 for the return
value. handle_buff
