Amit Shah wrote:
No flags, assume it's a streaming protocol and don't assume anything
about message sizes. IOW, when you send clipboard data, send size and
then the data. QEMU consumes bytes until it reaches size.
Same intent but a different method: I'll have to specify that
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been explained multiple times.
If there are implementation issues within the Linux drivers because of
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been explained multiple times.
It hardly
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [08:17:21], Anthony Liguori wrote:
- A lock has to be introduced to fetch one unused buffer from the list
and pass it on to the host. And this lock has to be a spinlock, just
because writes can be called from irq context.
I don't see a problem here.
You
On Monday 31 August 2009, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
Hi, Michael
That's a great job. We are now working on support VMDq on KVM, and since the
VMDq hardware presents L2 sorting
based on MAC addresses and VLAN tags, our target is to implement a zero copy
solution using VMDq.
I'm also interested
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm not going to constantly rehash
this. It's been
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [10:56:27], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) Aug 31 2009 [09:21:13], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
Can you please explain your rationale for being so rigid about merging
the two drivers?
Because they do the same thing. I'm
Amit Shah wrote:
We're ending up having to compromise on the performance or functionality
or simplicity the devices just because of this restriction.
This is _not_ a high performance device and there so far has been no
functionality impact. I don't understand why you keep
On 08/31/2009 02:42 PM, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
Hi, Michael
That's a great job. We are now working on support VMDq on KVM, and since the
VMDq hardware presents L2 sorting based on MAC addresses and VLAN tags, our
target is to implement a zero copy solution using VMDq. We stared from the
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/31/2009 02:42 PM, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
Hi, Michael
That's a great job. We are now working on support VMDq on KVM, and
since the VMDq hardware presents L2 sorting based on MAC addresses
and VLAN tags, our target is to implement a zero copy solution using
VMDq. We
10 matches
Mail list logo
