lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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@redhat.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@redhat.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-15 14:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans