On Thursday 02 April 2009 21:36:07 Gregory Haskins wrote: > You do not need to know when the packet is copied (which I currently > do). You only need it for zero-copy (of which I would like to support, > but as I understand it there are problems with the reliability of proper > callback (i.e. skb->destructor). But if you have a UP guest, there will *never* be another packet in the queue at this point, since it wasn't running. As Avi said, you can do the processing in another thread and go back to the guest; lguest pre-virtio did a hacky "weak" wakeup to ensure the guest ran again before the thread did for exactly this kind of reason. While Avi's point about a "powerful enough userspace API" is probably valid, I don't think it's going to happen. It's almost certainly less code to put a virtio_net server in the kernel, than it is to create such a powerful interface (see vringfd & tap). And that interface would have one user in practice. So, let's roll out a kernel virtio_net server. Anyone? Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
