On 09/22/2012 03:31 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 09/21/2012 09:14 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >>>> +#define MAX_CLIENTS 16 >>>> >>>> Seems a bit arbitrary. Why 16? >> Sasha Levin posted a patch to fix this but it was tied in to >> the proposed KVM implementation, so was never merged. >> > > My patch changed the max pools per client, not the maximum amount of clients. > That patch has already found it's way in. > > (MAX_CLIENTS does look like an arbitrary number though). btw, while we're on the subject of KVM, the implementation of tmem/kvm was blocked due to insufficient performance caused by the lack of multi-page ops/batching. Are there any plans to make it better in the future? Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
