From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:48:14 +0200
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:20:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
>> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200
>>
>> > OK, I think we can queue this for -next.
>> >
>> > It's fairly limited in the kind of
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:20:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200
>
> > OK, I think we can queue this for -next.
> >
> > It's fairly limited in the kind of hardware supported, we can and
> > probably should extend it further with t
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200
> OK, I think we can queue this for -next.
>
> It's fairly limited in the kind of hardware supported, we can and
> probably should extend it further with time.
>
> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
Michael, thanks for reviewing.
Sin
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:12:04PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet
> modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see
> any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver
> to only but 100 bytes pe
This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet
modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see
any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver
to only but 100 bytes per buffer.
There are some restrictions for XDP to be enabled and work we
