From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] kvm-guest-drivers-windows-2 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:01:17 +0300 Message-ID: <482BEDCD.7050308@qumranet.com> References: <482AEE8D.7000608@wpkg.org> <1210777782.24261.829.camel@localhost.localdomain> <482B09EE.20903@wpkg.org> <1210781968.24261.841.camel@localhost.localdomain> <482B2649.2090006@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Tomasz Chmielewski To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <482B2649.2090006@codemonkey.ws> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > FWIW, virtio-net is much better with my patches applied. The can_receive patches? Again, I'm not opposed to them in principle, I just think that if they help that this points at a virtio deficiency. Virtio should never leave the rx queue empty. Consider the case where the virtio queue isn't tied to a socket buffer, but directly to hardware. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/