"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>> Without the inline keywords, it doesn't inline virtqueue_add, and thus
>> sg_next_chained and sg_next_add aren't inlined:
>>
>> $ for i in `seq 50`; do /usr/bin/time --format=%U ./vringh_test --indirect
>> --eventidx --parallel; done 2>&1 | stats --trim-outliers
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Without the inline keywords, it doesn't inline virtqueue_add, and thus
sg_next_chained and sg_next_add aren't inlined:
$ for i in `seq 50`; do /usr/bin/time --format=%U ./vringh_test --indirect
--eventidx --parallel; done 21 | stats --trim-outliers
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:38:44PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> >> These are specialized
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> >> These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
>> >> over 50% of cases and
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
over 50% of
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:38:44PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
> >> over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
> >>
> >> In
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
>> over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
>>
>> In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
>> to be clean
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
to be
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
In
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
> over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
>
> In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
> to be clean (ie. we ignore end markers).
>
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:26:26PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
to be clean (ie. we ignore end markers).
FIXME: I'm
On 02/19/2013 03:56 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
> over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
>
> In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
> to be clean (ie. we ignore end markers).
>
> FIXME: I'm not sure
On 02/19/2013 03:56 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
These are specialized versions of virtqueue_add_buf(), which cover
over 50% of cases and are far clearer.
In particular, the scatterlists passed to these functions don't have
to be clean (ie. we ignore end markers).
FIXME: I'm not sure about
14 matches
Mail list logo