On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:35:16AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:15:02PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> OK, so I've spent a few days benchmarking. Turns out 80% of > >> virtio_add_buf cases are uni-directional (including the > >> always-performance-sensitive networking code), and that gets no > >> performance penalty (though tests with real networking would be > >> appreciated!). > >> > >> I'm not reposting all the "convert driver to virtio_add_outbuf()" > >> patches: just the scsi one which I didn't have before. I won't actually > >> remove virtio_add_buf() until the *following* merge window, just to be > >> sure. > > > > Why not send out all the patches in this series? It would be much easier > > for people to read in one thread. > > I could re-spam people, but the patches are unchanged and uninteresting: > the scsi one I wanted an Ack for, however. > > I really want people to review the core patches, and if they're fine, People can skip the uninteresting patches easlily in one thread. Having all the patches in one thread makes people see the whole picture. > I'll post the whole thing one last time before putting them in my > virtio-next branch (where they can't change). Okay, sounds good. > Cheers, > Rusty. -- Asias _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
