Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
No, because I don't understand it. Is it true for the case of
virtio_blk, which has outstanding requests?
Currently we dump a massive structure; it's inelegant at the very
least.
Inelegant is a kind
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 01:08:07PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Add sanity check to address the following concern:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:47:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
All we need is the index of the request; the rest can be re-read from
the ring.
I'd like to point out
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
No, because I don't understand it. Is it true for the case of
virtio_blk, which has outstanding requests?
Currently we dump a massive structure; it's
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:33:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Add sanity check to address the following concern:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:47:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
All we need is the index
Add sanity check to address the following concern:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:47:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
All we need is the index of the request; the rest can be re-read from
the ring.
I'd like to point out that this is not generally
true if any available requests are outstanding.
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Add sanity check to address the following concern:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:47:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
All we need is the index of the request; the rest can be re-read from
the ring.
The terminology I used here was loose, indeed.
We need
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:33:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Add sanity check to address the following concern:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:47:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
All we need is the index of the request; the rest can be re-read from
