[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEsm5DCb+n3NYeRjmq3rAANztZz5QmV8rbPNo+cH-=VzDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:27:13 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@...nix.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@...nix.com>, Andrew Melnychenko <andrew@...nix.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, gur.stavi@...wei.com, devel@...nix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tun: Set num_buffers for virtio 1.0
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:59 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@...nix.com> wrote:
>
> The specification says the device MUST set num_buffers to 1 if
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF has not been negotiated.
Have we agreed on how to fix the spec or not?
As I replied in the spec patch, if we just remove this "MUST", it
looks like we are all fine?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists