Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 2:30 pm

Hi Ira,


Sorry about that.

With respect to this commit, we only had one implementation upstream
and extra levels of indirection made extending the API
much harder for no apparent benefit.

When there's more than one ring implementation with very small amount of
common code, I think that it might make sense to readd the indirection
back, to separate the code cleanly.

OTOH if the two implementations share a lot of code, I think that it
might be better to just add a couple of if statements here and there.
This way compiler even might have a chance to compile the code out if
the feature is disabled in kernel config.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Ira W. Snyder, (Wed Aug 4, 4:04 pm)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Michael S. Tsirkin, (Thu Aug 5, 2:30 pm)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Ira W. Snyder, (Thu Aug 5, 4:01 pm)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Michael S. Tsirkin, (Thu Aug 5, 4:20 pm)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Ira W. Snyder, (Fri Aug 6, 8:34 am)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Alexander Graf, (Sat Aug 14, 4:34 am)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Rusty Russell, (Sun Aug 15, 5:19 pm)
Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport, Michael S. Tsirkin, (Mon Sep 6, 4:19 am)