On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 08:03 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs <justing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX > > be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure > > padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is exactly 4 bytes, > > so this should be made explicit. ILP64 machines may still be a way > > out, but the use of non-fixed sized types in places where size really > > matters just isn't clean. > > Yes, if we're going to rev the interface, then any such flaws should be > corrected. There has been talk of doing something similar for netif too. IIRC the netchannel2 work included a new generic ring scheme with support for variable sized req/rsp elements and such. If we are going to rev the rings then should we try and use a common ring mechanism? I think so. If so then we could do worse than to start from the netchannel2 ring stuff and/or concepts? Looks like that is http://xenbits.xen.org/ext/netchannel2/linux-2.6.18/log/075f6677a290/include/xen/interface/io/uring.h still a bit nc2 specific though. Ian. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
