On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:00:52 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:53:19PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Sun, 15 May 2011 15:47:27 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:43:15PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 May 2011 23:51:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > #define VIRTIO_RING_F_USED_EVENT_IDX 29 > > > > > +/* The Host publishes the avail index for which it expects a kick > > > > > + * at the end of the used ring. Guest should ignore the used->flags field. */ > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_RING_F_AVAIL_EVENT_IDX 32 > > > > > > > > Are you really sure we want to separate the two? Seems a little simpler > > > > to have one bit to mean "we're publishing our threshold". For someone > > > > implementing this from scratch, it's a little simpler. > > > > > > > > Or are there cases where the old style makes more sense? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rusty. > > > > > > Hmm, it makes debugging easier as each side can disable > > > publishing separately - I used it all the time when I saw > > > e.g. networking stuck to guess whether I need to investigate the > > > interrupt or the exit handling. > > > > > > But I'm not hung up on this. > > > > > > Let me know pls. > > > > If we combine them into one, then these patches no longer depend on > > the feature bit expansion, which is worthwhile (though I'll take both). > > > > Thanks, > > Rusty. > > Yes, I know. But if we do expand feature bits anyway, for debugging > and profiling if nothing else it's useful to have them separate ... > If you take both why does the order matter? Damage control. Then if something breaks, it doesn't break everything. Cheers, 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
