Gregory Haskins wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
We all love faster code and better management interfaces and tons
of your prior patches got accepted by Avi. This time you didnt even
_try_ to improve virtio.
Im sorry, but you are mistaken:
Hi Anthony,
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
We all love faster code and better management interfaces and tons of
your prior patches got accepted by Avi. This time you didnt even
_try_ to improve virtio.
Im sorry, but
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Fundamentally, how is this different than the virtio-add_buf concept?
From my POV, they are at different levels. Calling vbus-shm() is for
establishing a shared-memory region including routing the memory and
signal-path contexts. You do this
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Fundamentally, how is this different than the virtio-add_buf concept?
From my POV, they are at different levels. Calling vbus-shm() is for
establishing a shared-memory region including routing the memory and
signal-path contexts. You do this once
Anthony Liguori wrote:
IOW, I can envision a model that looked like PCI - virtio-pci -
virtio-shm - virtio-ring - virtio-net
Let me stress that what's important here is that devices target either
virtio-ring or virtio-shm. If we had another transport, those drivers
would be agnostic toward
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
We all love faster code and better management interfaces and tons
of your prior patches got accepted by Avi. This time you didnt even
_try_ to improve virtio.
Im sorry, but you are mistaken:
