> On 26 Dec 2015, at 5:49 PM, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:11:51PM +0100, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
>> The main interesting bit here is the txeof and start loops, which previously
>> operated based on the prod/cons indices and the contents of the tx
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:11:51PM +0100, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> The main interesting bit here is the txeof and start loops, which previously
> operated based on the prod/cons indices and the contents of the tx queue,
> but now just uses the indices as that's the only way to get a consistent
Dimitris Papastamos [s...@2f30.org] wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:11:51PM +0100, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> > The main interesting bit here is the txeof and start loops, which previously
> > operated based on the prod/cons indices and the contents of the tx queue,
> > but now just uses the
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:11:51PM +0100, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> The main interesting bit here is the txeof and start loops, which previously
> operated based on the prod/cons indices and the contents of the tx queue,
> but now just uses the indices as that's the only way to get a consistent
The main interesting bit here is the txeof and start loops, which previously
operated based on the prod/cons indices and the contents of the tx queue,
but now just uses the indices as that's the only way to get a consistent view
of the tx queue state.
At the moment I don't think the tx ring is