On Sunday 11 January 2009 17:38:22 Avi Kivity wrote: > Sheng Yang wrote: > > After reconsidering, I must say I prefer add/remove ioctls. > > > > About the code size, I don't think it would increase much. I've rewritten > > the code twice, I think I know the difference is little. > > > :( sorry about that. > : > > For the option 2 route table ioctl, we got a array from userspace, and > > would convert it to linked list and keep it in kernel. That's a kind of > > must(I don't think you would prefer use a array in kernel), and it's very > > direct. > > Actually, eventually we'd want an array indexed by gsi. Each element > would be a pointer to another array (one or two routing entries). > > Certainly we don't want to iterate a list which could hold several > hundred interrupts for a large guest. > > It's okay to start with a linked list, but eventually we'll want > something faster.
Oh, I see. What I means here is allocate/deallocate would cause some memory fragments, but seems not that critical here. > > > So, we have to insert/delete route entry for both. What's the real > > difference we do it one by one or do it all at once. I don't think it is > > much different on the code size. And it's indeed very clear and direct. > > > > Beside this, option 2 seems strange. Why should we handle this table in > > this way when it won't result in significant code reduce. Insert/delete > > entry it there, look up entry is also there, not many things changed. And > > it's not that direct as option 1, which also can be a source of bugs. > > > > How do you think? > > I'm not convinced. Please post your latest, and I will post a > counter-proposal. OK. -- regards Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
