[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4723FA4F0FFEBD25903E3344D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:51:22 +0000
From: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes
> > I see your point.
> > Regardless, we'll need to fail probe in some cases.
> > ring size of 1 for example (if I'm not mistaken)
>
> Hmm. We can make it work if we increase hard header size, then
> there will always be room for vnet header.
>
> > control vq even needs a bigger ring.
>
> Why does it?
At the moment, most of the commands chain 3 descriptors:
1 - class + command
2 - command specific
3 - ack
We could merge 1 and 2 into a single one, both are read only for the device, so I take it back, it won't need a bigger ring.
But it will need 2 descriptors at least(1 read only for the device and 1 write only for the device), so we still need to fail probe sometimes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists