On 14.03.12 at 18:17, Justin T. Gibbs gi...@scsiguy.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh santosh.j...@citrix.com wrote:
…
+ }
+
/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs just...@spectralogic.com wrote:
There's another problem here that I brought up during the Xen
Hack-a-thon. The ring macros require that the ring element count
be a power of two. This doesn't mean that the ring will be a power
of 2 pages in size. To
On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs just...@spectralogic.com wrote:
There's another problem here that I brought up during the Xen
Hack-a-thon. The ring macros require that the ring element count
be a power of two. This doesn't mean that the ring will be a power
of 2 pages in size. To
From: Santosh Jodh santosh.j...@citrix.com
Add support for multi page ring for block devices.
The number of pages is configurable for blkback via module parameter.
blkback reports max-ring-page-order to blkfront via xenstore.
blkfront reports its supported ring-page-order to blkback via xenstore.
Great feedback. I removed unsigned for the first, changed the error code and
added module param name in the printk.
Please see latest patch:
---
diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
index 0088bf6..cc238e7 100644
---
On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk kon...@darnok.org wrote:
- XENBUS_MAX_RING_PAGES - why 2? Why not 4? What is the optimal
default size for SSD usage? 16?
What do SSDs have to do with a XenBus definition? Imo it's wrong (and
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh santosh.j...@citrix.com wrote:
…
+ }
+
/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
if (err)
@@ -889,12 +916,35 @@ again:
goto
On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk kon...@darnok.org wrote:
- the usage of XenbusStateInitWait? Why do we introduce that? Looks
like a fix to something.
No, this is required to get the negotiation working (the frontend must
not try to read the new nodes until it can be certain that
On Mar 7, 2012 4:33 AM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk kon...@darnok.org wrote:
- the usage of XenbusStateInitWait? Why do we introduce that? Looks
like a fix to something.
No, this is required to get the negotiation working (the frontend
On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh santosh.j...@citrix.com wrote:
Could this be split up into 3 patches, for easier reviewing:
- one adjusting the xenbus interface to allow for multiple ring pages (and
maybe even that one should be split into the backend and frontend
related parts), syncing
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:49:07 -0800, Santosh Jodh santosh.j...@citrix.com wrote:
+/* Order of maximum shared ring size advertised to the front end. */
+int xen_blkif_max_ring_order = XENBUS_MAX_RING_ORDER;
+
+#define BLK_RING_SIZE(_order) __CONST_RING_SIZE(blkif, PAGE_SIZE (_order))
+
+static
11 matches
Mail list logo
