On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:04:56AM +0000, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > > > So, what do you think, we should fix virtio-net to work with smaller rings? we should fail probe? > > > > > > I think that since this never came up until now, there is no big demand to such small rings. > > > > The worry is that once we start failing probe there's just a tiny chance > > hosts begin to rely on us failing probe then we won't be able to fix it. > > So it depends on the size of the patch I think. So far it seems small enough > > that wasting code on failing probe isn't worth it. > > > > I see your point. > Regardless, we'll need to fail probe in some cases. > ring size of 1 for example (if I'm not mistaken) Hmm. We can make it work if we increase hard header size, then there will always be room for vnet header. > control vq even needs a bigger ring. Why does it? > Maybe we can fix virtnet to allow smaller rings + fail probe in some cases, all in the same patch/patchset. If we can't make it work then yes. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
