On (Tue) Dec 08 2009 [11:46:10], Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:32:46 pm Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Thu) Dec 03 2009 [09:13:25], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Thu) Dec 03 2009 [09:24:23], Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:54:06 pm Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > > On (Wed) Dec 02 2009 [14:14:20], Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:20:35 pm Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > The console could be flooded with data from the host; handle
> > > > > > > this situation by buffering the data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this complexity makes me really wonder if we should just
> > > > > > have the host say the max # ports it will ever use, and just do this
> > > > > > really dumbly. Yes, it's a limitation, but it'd be much simpler.
> > > > >
> > > > > As in make sure the max nr ports is less than 255 and have per-port
> > > > > vqs?
> > > > > And then the buffering will be done inside the vqs themselves?
> > > >
> > > > Well < 128 (two vqs per port). The config would say (with a feature
> > > > bit)
> > > > how many vq pairs there are.
> > >
> > > Sure. This was how the previous versions behaved as well.
> >
> > I forgot one detail:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06079.html
> >
> > Some API changes are needed to pre-declare the number of vqs and the
> > selectively enable them as ports get added.
>
> Couldn't we make it that all vqs *exist*, they're just unused unless the
> bitmap (or whatever) indicates?
Yes, but the current interface makes that a bit difficult: find_vqs
needs the entire array for the callbacks. So if instead of find_vqs, we
could have two functions,
ret = init_vqs(vdev, nr_vqs);
for (i = 0; i < nr_vqs; i += 2)
enable_vqs(vdev, i, 2, callbacks, names);
this would be simplified and we can also then enabling and disabling vqs
as ports get hot plugged / unplugged.
Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
