On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Right now, the number of copy operations in your code is the same. > > > You are doing the copy a little bit later in skb_copy_datagram_iovec(), > > > which is indeed a very nice hack. Changing to a virtqueue based method > > > would imply that the host needs to add each skb_frag_t to its outbound > > > virtqueue, which then gets copied into the guests inbound virtqueue. > > > > Which is a lot more code than just calling skb_copy_datagram_iovec. > > Well, I don't see this part as much of a problem, because the code > already exists in virtio_net. I am talking about the copying done in low level transport, here. > If we really wanted to go down that road, > just using virtio_net would solve the problem of frame handling > entirely, but create new problems elsewhere, as we have mentioned. > > Arnd <>< -- 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
