[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] packed ring layout proposal
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:47:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 19/09/2016 19:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > No but you do need to make sure that when get_buf returns > > the first buffer, all buffers are available. > > Is that not the case already? But anyway I now agree it's better to put > it in the descriptor, thanks for clarifying. > > > And from the achitecture POV, I feel this is a transport > > thing, not a device specific thing. > > It depends, many devices (e.g. storage) are packet-based and bursts do > not have any meaning. So I guess it's okay, but then I would prefer to > make it a separate feature bit. It just becomes an optimization feature then, and can be ignored without a feature flag. Maybe it's ok - will allow reusing some bits for something else - but some people did complain about all the branches forced by the feature bits. > I'm mostly afraid that it would be hard for the spec to define it in > general terms (while it's easy to define something specific to rxbuf > merging). Having device-specific descriptor flags seems like a natural > extension anyway... > > Paolo Well - the batching of the index is kind of an undocumented property in 1.0. I'll try to write it up, let's see what I can come up with. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]