On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:58:59AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > The struct virtio_pci_common_cfg field is called msix_config but the
> > text refers to this field as config_msix_vector. This is confusing.
> >
> > Rename
From: Jan Kiszka
Currently, it slips under the Packed Virtqueues section while it is not
specific to this format.
At this chance, capitalize "Notifications".
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
---
content.tex | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/content.tex
From: Jan Kiszka
Trying to escaping ^ here only leaves the backslash in the output.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
---
packed-ring.tex | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/packed-ring.tex b/packed-ring.tex
index caf47a5..ea92543 100644
--- a/packed-ring.tex
+++
On 10/10/19 4:36 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 6:13 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>
>> +static int process_free_page(struct page *page,
>> +struct page_reporting_config *phconf, int count)
>> +{
>> + int mt, order, ret = 0;
>> +
>> +
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The struct virtio_pci_common_cfg field is called msix_config but the
> text refers to this field as config_msix_vector. This is confusing.
>
> Rename config_msix_vector to msix_config. Although config_msix_vector
> is arguably a
The struct virtio_pci_common_cfg field is called msix_config but the
text refers to this field as config_msix_vector. This is confusing.
Rename config_msix_vector to msix_config. Although config_msix_vector
is arguably a clearer name, existing code using Linux virtio_pci.h uses
msix_config so
Hi Tomasz,
On Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2019 05:55:45 CEST Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:09 AM Dmitry Morozov
>
> wrote:
> > Hi Tomasz,
> >
> > On Montag, 7. Oktober 2019 16:14:13 CEST Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:01 PM Dmitry Morozov
>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:29:49PM +0200, Matti Moell wrote:
> I wasn't able to find any discussion about not including multiqueue in the
> spec and this patch was never applied, is there any particular reason why it
> wasn't added?
>
> Should it even be added to the spec?
Yes, it should be
