>>> On 15.03.12 at 09:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 08:03 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
>> > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
>> > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 08:03 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
> > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
> > padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is
>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:17, "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh wrote:
>
> …
>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>>/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
>>>err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
>>>if (
>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
> be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
> padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is exactly 4 bytes,
> so this should be made explicit. ILP64 mac
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh wrote:
…
>> + }
>> +
>>/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
>>err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
>>if (err)
>> @@ -889,12 +916,35 @@ again:
>>goto destroy_
On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs wrote:
>> There's another problem here that I brought up during the Xen
>> Hack-a-thon. The ring macros require that the ring element count
>> be a power of two. This doesn't mean that the ring will be a pow
On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> -> XENBUS_MAX_RING_PAGES - why 2? Why not 4? What is the optimal
>> default size for SSD usage? 16?
>
> What do SSDs have to do with a XenBus definition? Imo it's wrong (and
> unnecessary)
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 21:49 +, Santosh Jodh wrote:
> From: Santosh Jodh
>
> Add support for multi page ring for block devices.
> The number of pages is configurable for blkback via module parameter.
> blkback reports max-ring-page-order to blkfront via xenstore.
> blkfront reports its support
>>> On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> There's another problem here that I brought up during the Xen
> Hack-a-thon. The ring macros require that the ring element count
> be a power of two. This doesn't mean that the ring will be a power
> of 2 pages in size. To illustrate this point, I
>>> On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> There's another problem here that I brought up during the Xen
> Hack-a-thon. The ring macros require that the ring element count
> be a power of two. This doesn't mean that the ring will be a power
> of 2 pages in size. To illustrate this point, I
On Mar 7, 2012 4:33 AM, "Jan Beulich" wrote:
>
> >>> On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > -> the usage of XenbusStateInitWait? Why do we introduce that? Looks
> > like a fix to something.
>
> No, this is required to get the negotiation working (the frontend must
> not try to re
>>> On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> -> the usage of XenbusStateInitWait? Why do we introduce that? Looks
> like a fix to something.
No, this is required to get the negotiation working (the frontend must
not try to read the new nodes until it can be certain that the backend
p
12 matches
Mail list logo
