Il 11/03/2012 16:26, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
Note that - I still hope - in the end there will be no sendv or
recv calls at all, only common sendv_recvv with is_write passed
as an argument from upper layer. It will be easier to remove
that #define - just two lines of code instead of
On 12.03.2012 17:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/03/2012 16:26, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
Note that - I still hope - in the end there will be no sendv or
recv calls at all, only common sendv_recvv with is_write passed
as an argument from upper layer. It will be easier to remove
that #define
Il 12/03/2012 17:29, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
For example, qemu_co_recvv has handling for receiving 0, but
qemu_co_sendv does not.
This is a bug, which I dind't notice, it shouldn't
be there. Somehow I overlooked this difference, but
I really wondered how they're differ! By using common
Il 11/03/2012 02:49, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
The same as for non-coroutine versions in previous patches:
rename arguments to be more obvious, change type of arguments
from int to size_t where appropriate, and use common code for
send and receive paths (with one extra argument) since these
On 11.03.2012 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/03/2012 02:49, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
The same as for non-coroutine versions in previous patches:
rename arguments to be more obvious, change type of arguments
from int to size_t where appropriate, and use common code for
send and receive
The same as for non-coroutine versions in previous patches:
rename arguments to be more obvious, change type of arguments
from int to size_t where appropriate, and use common code for
send and receive paths (with one extra argument) since these
are exactly the same. Use common qemu_sendv_recvv()
