>>> On 15.03.12 at 09:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 08:03 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
>> > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
>> > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 08:03 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
> > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
> > padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is
>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:17, "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh wrote:
>
> …
>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>>/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
>>>err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
>>>if (
>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs wrote:
> While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
> be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
> padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is exactly 4 bytes,
> so this should be made explicit. ILP64 mac
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh wrote:
…
>> + }
>> +
>>/* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
>>err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
>>if (err)
>> @@ -889,12 +916,35 @@ again:
>>goto destroy_
On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs 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 pow
On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 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
> unnecessary)
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 21:49 +, Santosh Jodh wrote:
> From: Santosh Jodh
>
> 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 support
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
--- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/b
From: Santosh Jodh
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.
blkfront reports multi
>>> On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs 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 illustrate this point, I
>>> On 14.03.12 at 07:32, Justin Gibbs 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 illustrate this point, I
On Mar 7, 2012 4:33 AM, "Jan Beulich" wrote:
>
> >>> On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 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 re
>>> On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 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 the backend
p
>>> On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh 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 with the similar netb
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:49:07 -0800, Santosh Jodh 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 int set_max_rin
16 matches
Mail list logo
