Re: [PATCH 00/10] PV-IO v3

Avi Kivity
2007-08-21T12:29:20Z

Rusty Russell wrote:
> Partly the horror of the code, but mainly because it is an in-order
> ring. You'll note that we use a reply ring, so we don't need to know
> how much the other side has consumed (and it needn't do so in order).
>

Yes, it's quite nice: by using two in-order rings, you get out-of-order
completions. Simple _and_ efficient.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function