[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D4B523.9020802@novell.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:52:51 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
anthony@...emonkey.ws, andi@...stfloor.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de, pmullaney@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>
>> there will *never* be another packet in the queue
>> at this point, since it wasn't running.
>>
>>
> Yep, and I'll be the first to admit that my design only looks forward.
>
To clarify, I am referring to the internal design of the venet-tap
only. The general vbus architecture makes no such policy decisions.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists