From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:18:08 +0300 Message-ID: <4A8974B0.8050604@redhat.com> References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> <4A87C3B9.2040206@redhat.com> <4A896648.9040707@gmail.com> <4A897057.2050504@redhat.com> <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 08/17/2009 06:09 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out specific >> differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll be glad to hear >> (and steal) them though. >> >> > You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh? > > If I've offended you, I apologize. > Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it > apparently falls on deaf ears. > Well, I'm sorry, I truly don't think I've had that question answered with specificity. I'm really interested in it (out of a selfish desire to improve virtio), but the only comment I recall from you was to the effect that the virtio rings were better than ioq in terms of cache placement. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function