From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: performance of virtual functions compared to virtio Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:07:13 +0300 Message-ID: <4DB92031.5070404@redhat.com> References: <4DAF8EF0.8010203@gmail.com> <1303353349.3110.181.camel@x201> <4DAFE5BE.1070506@redhat.com> <4DB02C9F.2050901@redhat.com> <4DB5B436.4060000@gmail.com> <4DB67FFF.8010909@redhat.com> <4DB886F3.10303@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Alex Williamson , KVM mailing list To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56831 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755097Ab1D1IHT (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:07:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DB886F3.10303@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/28/2011 12:13 AM, David Ahern wrote: > Is the following depict where copies are done for virtio-net? > Yes. You should have been an artist. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function