From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:54:43 -0500 Message-ID: <48AAD0A3.7080806@us.ibm.com> References: <1218829632-19037-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <48A95FC7.90105@qumranet.com> <20080818114425.GA20351@gondor.apana.org.au> <200808191045.20980.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <48AA8E90.7070404@qumranet.com> <48AACDCE.60907@us.ibm.com> <48AACFA1.2020004@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rusty Russell , Herbert Xu , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:49932 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755818AbYHSNz0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:55:26 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7JDtNTx028142 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:55:23 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m7JDtN4V068264 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:55:23 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m7JDtMuY023598 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:55:23 -0600 In-Reply-To: <48AACFA1.2020004@qumranet.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> I'd still like a way to disable it from the host. Even when it does >>> nothing it will force the header into the host cache, which may be >>> different from the guest cache. >> >> It's already in the host cache as we don't have a zero copy API right >> now. > > I'm thinking of the possibility that we will have a zero copy API one > day. Yes, and we can add an option to disable this hack when we implement a zero copy API. It's much easier to add an option than it is to remove one. I'm hoping that over time we can come up with a more clever solution to this problem eliminating the need to have an explicit option altogether. Regards, Anthony Liguori