On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:05:13AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > The answer you probably want is to "Why we do in this way instead of doing > at lower level?" > This would require a way to say "now flush data" if you don't want > to reimplement some sort of "smart" Nagle algorithm, which we are > disabling to avoid latencies. I'm sending the patches to add lower > level APIs for flushing since a year, repeatedly with explanations and > statistics so the answer is apparently "Because the team seems to not want > a lower level implementation"
I would not try to guess the team intent :) As far as I'm concerned, I did not look at it mostly for bandwidth reasons (and then memory loss issues ;). If the low-level version is a better way to address this (imo it's likely to be), then this patch would have been a good opportunity to discuss it, rather than just seeing this patch without the alternative. I'll go dig these patches now... (and I would have preferred that this is not pushed before we finish that conversation...) Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
