[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100915173034.GB2612@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:30:34 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host
kernel
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:00:04AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 17:39 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > In fact, I rechecked: both bridge and loopback have NETIF_F_HIGHDMA
> > set.
> > So maybe we should check NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL ...
> >
> > macvtap in bridged mode is interesting as well.
>
> I found that too, just wondered which flag to use is better. :)
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
At some level NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL makes sense: local packets
can get anywhere. OTOH one wonders whether there might be other
issues, e.g. in theory devices could hang on to frag pages
just by doing get_page. There might be other issues.
Maybe we are better off white-listing known-good drivers
with a new flag?
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists