Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> We're pretty sloppy in virtio right now about phys_ram_base
>> assumptions. This
>> patch is an incremental step between what we have today and a full
>> blown DMA
>> API. I backported the DMA API but the performance impact was not
>> acceptable
>>
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> We're pretty sloppy in virtio right now about phys_ram_base assumptions. This
> patch is an incremental step between what we have today and a full blown DMA
> API. I backported the DMA API but the performance impact was not acceptable
> to me. There's only a slight perfor
We're pretty sloppy in virtio right now about phys_ram_base assumptions. This
patch is an incremental step between what we have today and a full blown DMA
API. I backported the DMA API but the performance impact was not acceptable
to me. There's only a slight performance impact with this particul
