| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100805213050.GA24984@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:30:50 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: "Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Zang Roy <r61911@...escale.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport Hi Ira, > Making my life harder since the last time I tried this, mainline commit > 7c5e9ed0c (virtio_ring: remove a level of indirection) has removed the > possibility of using an alternative virtqueue implementation. The commit > message suggests that you might be willing to add this capability back. > Would this be an option? Sorry about that. With respect to this commit, we only had one implementation upstream and extra levels of indirection made extending the API much harder for no apparent benefit. When there's more than one ring implementation with very small amount of common code, I think that it might make sense to readd the indirection back, to separate the code cleanly. OTOH if the two implementations share a lot of code, I think that it might be better to just add a couple of if statements here and there. This way compiler even might have a chance to compile the code out if the feature is disabled in kernel config. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists