On 2018年05月19日 10:29, Tiwei Bie wrote:
I don't hope so.
I agreed driver should track the DMA addrs or some
other necessary things from the very beginning. And
I also repeated the spec to emphasize that it does
make sense. And I'd like to do that.
What I was saying is that, to support OOO, we may
need to manage these context (which saves DMA addrs
etc) via a list which is similar to the desc list
maintained via `next` in split ring instead of an
array whose elements always can be indexed directly.
My point is these context is a must (not only for OOO).
Yeah, and I have the exactly same point after you
pointed that I shouldn't get the addrs from descs.
I do think it makes sense. I'll do it in the next
version. I don't have any doubt about it. All my
questions are about the OOO, instead of whether we
should save context or not. It just seems that you
thought I don't want to do it, and were trying to
convince me that I should do it.
Right, but looks like I was wrong :)
The desc ring in split ring is an array, but its
free entries are managed as list via next. I was
just wondering, do we want to manage such a list
because of OOO. It's just a very simple question
that I want to hear your opinion... (It doesn't
means anything, e.g. It doesn't mean I don't want
to support OOO. It's just a simple question...)
So the question is yes. But I admit I don't have better idea other than what
you propose here (something like split ring which is a little bit sad).
Maybe Michael had.
Yeah, that's why I asked this question. It will
make the packed ring a bit similar to split ring
at least in the driver part. So I want to draw
your attention on this to make sure that we're
on the same page.
Yes. I think we are.
Thanks
Best regards,
Tiwei Bie
