Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "virtq_desc_f_next".
2020 Jun 03
1
[PATCH RFC 01/13] vhost: option to fetch descriptors through an independent struct
...+ ret = fetch_indirect_descs(vq, last, head);
>>
>> Note that this means we don't supported chained indirect descriptors which
>> complies the spec but we support this in vhost_get_vq_desc().
> Well the spec says:
> A driver MUST NOT set both VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT and VIRTQ_DESC_F_NEXT in flags.
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
No, but I meant current vhost_get_vq_desc() supports chained indirect
descriptor. Not sure if there's an application that depends on this
silently.
Thanks
2020 Jun 03
2
[PATCH RFC 01/13] vhost: option to fetch descriptors through an independent struct
On 2020/6/2 ??9:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The idea is to support multiple ring formats by converting
> to a format-independent array of descriptors.
>
> This costs extra cycles, but we gain in ability
> to fetch a batch of descriptors in one go, which
> is good for code cache locality.
>
> When used, this causes a minor performance degradation,
> it's been kept
2020 Jun 03
2
[PATCH RFC 01/13] vhost: option to fetch descriptors through an independent struct
On 2020/6/2 ??9:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The idea is to support multiple ring formats by converting
> to a format-independent array of descriptors.
>
> This costs extra cycles, but we gain in ability
> to fetch a batch of descriptors in one go, which
> is good for code cache locality.
>
> When used, this causes a minor performance degradation,
> it's been kept
2020 Jun 03
0
[PATCH RFC 01/13] vhost: option to fetch descriptors through an independent struct
...vq);
> > + ret = fetch_indirect_descs(vq, last, head);
>
>
> Note that this means we don't supported chained indirect descriptors which
> complies the spec but we support this in vhost_get_vq_desc().
Well the spec says:
A driver MUST NOT set both VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT and VIRTQ_DESC_F_NEXT in flags.
Did I miss anything?
> We probably need either fail early or just support that.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> > + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> > + if (ret != -EAGAIN)
> > + vq_err(vq, "Failure detected "
> > + "in indirect...