Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:51 +0800 |
| |
On 2018年05月19日 10:29, Tiwei Bie wrote: >> I don't hope so. >> >>> I agreed driver should track the DMA addrs or some >>> other necessary things from the very beginning. And >>> I also repeated the spec to emphasize that it does >>> make sense. And I'd like to do that. >>> >>> What I was saying is that, to support OOO, we may >>> need to manage these context (which saves DMA addrs >>> etc) via a list which is similar to the desc list >>> maintained via `next` in split ring instead of an >>> array whose elements always can be indexed directly. >> My point is these context is a must (not only for OOO). > Yeah, and I have the exactly same point after you > pointed that I shouldn't get the addrs from descs. > I do think it makes sense. I'll do it in the next > version. I don't have any doubt about it. All my > questions are about the OOO, instead of whether we > should save context or not. It just seems that you > thought I don't want to do it, and were trying to > convince me that I should do it.
Right, but looks like I was wrong :)
> >>> The desc ring in split ring is an array, but its >>> free entries are managed as list via next. I was >>> just wondering, do we want to manage such a list >>> because of OOO. It's just a very simple question >>> that I want to hear your opinion... (It doesn't >>> means anything, e.g. It doesn't mean I don't want >>> to support OOO. It's just a simple question...) >> So the question is yes. But I admit I don't have better idea other than what >> you propose here (something like split ring which is a little bit sad). >> Maybe Michael had. > Yeah, that's why I asked this question. It will > make the packed ring a bit similar to split ring > at least in the driver part. So I want to draw > your attention on this to make sure that we're > on the same page.
Yes. I think we are.
Thanks
> Best regards, > Tiwei Bie >
| |