From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NVQmf-0004un-Vl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:49 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NVQmb-0004s0-7D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:49 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51333 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NVQmb-0004rv-1y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:45 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]:43401)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NVQma-0007Nm-J5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:44 -0500
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so3929246qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B4F2B82.9000800@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:34:42 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/8] virtio-console: Move to qdev, multiple
	devices, generic ports
References: <1263475063-15238-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1263475063-15238-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 01/14/2010 07:17 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> This iteration of the series removes the START and END flags (and
> hence the header associated with each buffer). That's the major change
> since the last submission.
>    

I think the biggest issue remaining is the buffering.

I think this is a pretty fundamental issue to work out since it 
determines the very nature of the transport (stream vs. datagram).

Because you have to put a max buffer size on the transport, I think 
buffering is a really flawed approach provably equivalent to just 
increasing the message size within the transport.  In general, the later 
is a better approach because then the guest is using it's memory vs. 
using host memory.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori