在 2022/2/18 下午6:22, Eugenio Perez Martin 写道:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:32 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:24:23AM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:29 PM Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:32:48AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
>> This patch adds the ability to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> feature.
> This would aid in reaping performance benefits with HW devices
> that implement this
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:29 PM Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:32:48AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
> >> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> >> for vhost-vdpa backend when
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:32 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
> > This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> > for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> > feature.
> > This would aid in
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:32:48AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
feature.
This would aid in reaping
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:16 AM Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:23 PM Gautam Dawar wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> > for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> > feature.
> > This would aid in reaping
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:27:14AM +, Gautam Dawar wrote:
> [GD>>] Yes , I agree a complete solution that will support the
> emulated virtio device with in_order rx/tx virtqueue functions will
> definitely be better but at the same time it will take considerable
> amount of time and effort. I
VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER to be negotiated for vdpa
devices
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:23 PM Gautam Dawar wrote:
>
> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit for
> vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this feature.
> This would aid in reaping performance benefits wit
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0530, Gautam Dawar wrote:
> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> feature.
> This would aid in reaping performance benefits with HW devices
> that implement this
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:23 PM Gautam Dawar wrote:
>
> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> feature.
> This would aid in reaping performance benefits with HW devices
> that implement this feature. At
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:23 AM Gautam Dawar wrote:
>
> This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
> for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
> feature.
> This would aid in reaping performance benefits with HW devices
> that implement this feature. At
This patch adds the ability to negotiate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER bit
for vhost-vdpa backend when the underlying device supports this
feature.
This would aid in reaping performance benefits with HW devices
that implement this feature. At the same time, it shouldn't have
any negative impact as vhost-vdpa
13 matches
Mail list logo
