From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] virtio_add_buf replacement. Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:35:16 +1100 Message-ID: <878v609hdn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87k3plaz3d.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20130306080940.GA4034@hj.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130306080940.GA4034@hj.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Asias He Cc: mst@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, sjur.brandeland@stericsson.com List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Asias He writes: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:15:02PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: >> OK, so I've spent a few days benchmarking. Turns out 80% of >> virtio_add_buf cases are uni-directional (including the >> always-performance-sensitive networking code), and that gets no >> performance penalty (though tests with real networking would be >> appreciated!). >> >> I'm not reposting all the "convert driver to virtio_add_outbuf()" >> patches: just the scsi one which I didn't have before. I won't actually >> remove virtio_add_buf() until the *following* merge window, just to be >> sure. > > Why not send out all the patches in this series? It would be much easier > for people to read in one thread. I could re-spam people, but the patches are unchanged and uninteresting: the scsi one I wanted an Ack for, however. I really want people to review the core patches, and if they're fine, I'll post the whole thing one last time before putting them in my virtio-next branch (where they can't change). Cheers, Rusty.