Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hi!
> I see this in virtio_ring.c:
>
> /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx *
> until they do sync). */
>
> Why is it done this way?
> It seems that updating the index straight away would be simpler, while
> this might allow the
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:39:47 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hi!
> I see this in virtio_ring.c:
>
> /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx *
> until they do sync). */
>
> Why is it done this way?
> It seems that updating the index straight away would be simple
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:40:15PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/05/2010 06:09 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Hi!
>> I see this in virtio_ring.c:
>>
>> /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx *
>> until they do sync). */
>>
>> Why is it done this way?
On 05/05/2010 06:09 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hi!
> I see this in virtio_ring.c:
>
> /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx *
> until they do sync). */
>
> Why is it done this way?
> It seems that updating the index straight away would be simpler, while
Hi!
I see this in virtio_ring.c:
/* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx *
until they do sync). */
Why is it done this way?
It seems that updating the index straight away would be simpler, while
this might allow the host to specilatively look up the buffer
