On (Fri) Feb 12 2010 [19:34:58], Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:32:13 pm Amit Shah wrote: > > Hey Rusty, > > > > Here are a few fixes for virtio and virtio_console. > > > > The first patch ensures the data elements of vqs are properly > > initialised at allocation-time so that we don't trigger BUG_ONs. I found > > this when hot-unplugging ports and there was just one unused buffer. > > detach_unused_buffers() kept returning pointers that were invalid. I > > didn't catch this earlier as I had the in_vq filled completely. > > > > Patches 2, 4 and 5 can be folded into the series as they are bugfixes > > for the functionality present there. > > > > About patch 5: When running a test that transfers a 260M file from the > > host to the guest, qemu-kvm.git takes 17m with a single outstanding > > buffer in the in_vq vs. 1m when the entire in_vq is filled. This is a > > bug in qemu-kvm.git's scheduling, but since it's a big difference and > > not much change involved, we could merge this now. > > > > Comments? > > > > If these patches are favourable, I could send you a tarball in private > > so that the bugfixes are folded in the series and just patches 1, 3 and > > 6 are added. > > I prefer to fold them myself, after they've spent some time in linux-next. Fine by me. BTW should patch 1 be considered for stable? Thanks! Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
