[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110515124727.GA24932@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:47:27 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux390@...ibm.com, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Shirley Ma <xma@...ibm.com>, lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
Tom Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, steved@...ibm.com,
habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] virtio_ring: avail event index interface
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:43:15PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 23:51:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Define a new feature bit for the host to
> > declare that it uses an avail_event index
> > (like Xen) instead of a feature bit
> > to enable/disable interrupts.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 11 ++++++++---
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> > index f5c1b75..f791772 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> > @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@
> > /* The Guest publishes the used index for which it expects an interrupt
> > * at the end of the avail ring. Host should ignore the avail->flags field. */
> > #define VIRTIO_RING_F_USED_EVENT_IDX 29
> > +/* The Host publishes the avail index for which it expects a kick
> > + * at the end of the used ring. Guest should ignore the used->flags field. */
> > +#define VIRTIO_RING_F_AVAIL_EVENT_IDX 32
>
> Are you really sure we want to separate the two? Seems a little simpler
> to have one bit to mean "we're publishing our threshold". For someone
> implementing this from scratch, it's a little simpler.
>
> Or are there cases where the old style makes more sense?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
Hmm, it makes debugging easier as each side can disable
publishing separately - I used it all the time when I saw
e.g. networking stuck to guess whether I need to investigate the
interrupt or the exit handling.
But I'm not hung up on this.
Let me know pls.
--
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