[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <500A9A72.20507@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:02:58 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, mashirle@...ibm.com,
krkumar2@...ibm.com, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jwhan@...ewood.snu.ac.kr,
davem@...emloft.net, akong@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V5 4/5] virtio_net: multiqueue support
On 07/20/2012 03:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> - err = init_vqs(vi);
>> > + if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ))
>> > + vi->has_cvq = true;
>> > +
> How about we disable multiqueue if there's no cvq?
> Will make logic a bit simpler, won't it?
multiqueues don't really depend on cvq. Does this added complexity really justifies adding an artificial limit?
--
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