On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:46:15AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 07:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:25:03PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >>>
> >>> More generally, what makes this usage safe?
> >>> Is there a way to formalize it at the API level?
> >>
On 01/03/2018 07:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:25:03PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>
>>> More generally, what makes this usage safe?
>>> Is there a way to formalize it at the API level?
>>>
>>
>> Right I think these are good questions. I think the ptr_ring API sho
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:25:03PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >
> > More generally, what makes this usage safe?
> > Is there a way to formalize it at the API level?
> >
>
> Right I think these are good questions. I think the ptr_ring API should
> allow a peek operation to be used without a l
On 01/02/2018 03:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 01:27:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 01/02/2018 09:17 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:01:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Mille
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 01:27:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 09:17 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:01:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: John Fastabend
> >>> Date: Wed,
On 01/02/2018 09:17 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:01:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: John Fastabend
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
>>>
When running consumer and/or producer
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 19:01:33 +0200
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: John Fastabend
>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
>>
>> > When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
>> > parallel its possibl
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:01:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: John Fastabend
> > Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
> >
> > > When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> > > parallel its
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 07:50:25PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> > When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> > parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
> > array. The sce
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: John Fastabend
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
>
> > When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> > parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
> > array. The scenario
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 07:50:25PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
> array. The scenario occurs when an empty check is run while
> __ptr_ring_discard_one() is
From: John Fastabend
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
> When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
> array. The scenario occurs when an empty check is run while
> __ptr_ring_discard_one() is in
When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
array. The scenario occurs when an empty check is run while
__ptr_ring_discard_one() is in progress. Specifically after the
consumer_head is incremented but bef
13 matches
Mail list logo
