On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:28:58 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The return code of virtqueue_pop/vring_pop is unused except to check for
> errors or 0. We can thus easily move allocation inside the functions
> and just return a pointer to the VirtQueueElement.
>
> The advantage is that we will be abl
The return code of virtqueue_pop/vring_pop is unused except to check for
errors or 0. We can thus easily move allocation inside the functions
and just return a pointer to the VirtQueueElement.
The advantage is that we will be able to allocate only the space that
is needed for the actual size of t
On 19/01/2016 13:22, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > The patch is pretty large, but changes to each device are testable
> > more or less independently. Splitting it would mostly add churn.
>
> Would it help to add a no-frills virtqueue_pop() version that simply
> allocates the base VirtQueueElement an
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:50 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The return code of virtqueue_pop/vring_pop is unused except to check for
> errors or 0. We can thus easily move allocation inside the functions
> and just return a pointer to the VirtQueueElement.
Like this change.
>
> The advantage is
The return code of virtqueue_pop/vring_pop is unused except to check for
errors or 0. We can thus easily move allocation inside the functions
and just return a pointer to the VirtQueueElement.
The advantage is that we will be able to allocate only the space that
is needed for the actual size of t
