On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 02:05:31AM +1000, Rusty Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > Should this whole function and vring_used_buffer() be protected with
> > vr->lock mutex?
>
> No; it's up to the caller to make sure that they are serialized. In the case
> of tun that happens naturally.
>
>
Hi.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 02:39:48PM +1000, Rusty Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> +int vring_get_buffer(struct vring_info *vr,
> + struct iovec *in_iov,
> + unsigned int *num_in, unsigned long *in_len,
> + struct iovec *out_iov,
> +
From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:41:14 +1000
> If only there were some kind of, I don't know... summit... for kernel
> people...
I'm starting to disbelieve the myth that because we can discuss
technical issues on mailing lists, we should talk primarily about
pro
On Saturday 19 April 2008 05:38:50 Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On 4/18/08, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is may be our third high-bandwidth user/kernel interface to
> > transport bulk data ("hbukittbd") which was implemented because its
> > predecessors weren't quite right. In a y
On Sunday 20 April 2008 02:33:22 Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 02:05:31AM +1000, Rusty Russell
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > There are two reasons not to grab the lock. It turns out that if we
> > tried to lock here, we'd deadlock, since the callbacks are called under
> > the
On Saturday 19 April 2008 20:22:15 Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 02:39:48PM +1000, Rusty Russell
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > +int vring_get_buffer(struct vring_info *vr,
> > +struct iovec *in_iov,
> > +unsigned int *num_in, unsigned lo
> So I think it would be good to plonk the proposed interface on the table
> and have a poke at it. Is it compat-safe? Is it extensible in a
> backward-compatible fashion? Are there future-safe changes we should make
> to it? Can Michael Kerrisk understand, review and document it? etc.
>
> Yo
On 4/18/08, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:32:39 +1000 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Isn't this kinda-sorta like what a relayfs file does? The oprofile
> > > buffers? etc? Nothing in common at all, no hope?
> >
> > An excellent question,
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:32:39 +1000 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Isn't this kinda-sorta like what a relayfs file does? The oprofile
> > buffers? etc? Nothing in common at all, no hope?
>
> An excellent question, but I thought the modern kernel etiquette was to only
> comment on
On Friday 18 April 2008 21:18:46 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > + /* Must be a power of two, and limit indices to a u16. */
> > + if (!num_descs || (num_descs & (num_descs-1)) || num_descs > 65536)
>
> We have an is_power_of_2().
Thanks, fixed.
> > + * vring_get - check out a vring file descriptor
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:39:48 +1000 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> virtio introduced a ring structure ABI for guest-host communications
> (currently used by lguest and kvm). Using this same ABI, we can
> create a nice fd version.
>
> This is useful for efficiently passing packets to a
virtio introduced a ring structure ABI for guest-host communications
(currently used by lguest and kvm). Using this same ABI, we can
create a nice fd version.
This is useful for efficiently passing packets to and from the tun,
for example.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
dr
12 matches
Mail list logo
