From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amit Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/31] virtio: console: Buffer data that comes from the host Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:41:48 +0530 Message-ID: <20100113061148.GC31063@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <1261492481-19817-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1261492481-19817-18-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1261492481-19817-19-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <201001041945.30841.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20100104094717.GA11485@amit-x200.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100104094717.GA11485@amit-x200.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On (Mon) Jan 04 2010 [15:17:17], Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) Jan 04 2010 [19:45:30], Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:04:28 am Amit Shah wrote: > > > The console could be flooded with data from the host; handle this > > > situation by buffering the data. > > > > Is this still true? If we only add_buf when we're ready, surely the host > > can't flood us with one virtqueue per port? > > I guess I meant something completely different. This message is > definitely misleading and I'll re-word it. > > You're right; we don't need the 'guest throttling' feature that was > needed earlier. BTW I meant this series doesn't have the guest throttling feature. Rusty, did you just have this comment for the series? If yes, I'll just re-send this patch with a fixed description. Amit