On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:17:46AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

This is something I've thought about while writing the code, the reason I
keep it as one function body is that:

1. This function is very performance sensitive, and we need full control of
   code ordering (You can compare with the current performance with the
   mrg_rxbuf feature turned on to see the difference).

Will inline functions help?

Optimization in this patch actually reorganizes the code from its logic,
so it's not suitable for making separated functions.

I'll explain this in v2.

I agree with Yuanhan.
Inline functions should not break the optimizations.
IMHO, this is mandatory for the patch to be accepted.

Yes.

It seems you are not the only one facing the issue:
https://github.com/YanVugenfirer/kvm-guest-drivers-windows/issues/70

So a dedicated fix is really important.

Yes.

quoted

This patch doesn't try to fix this issue, it rewrites the logic totally,
and somehow fixes this issue.

Do you think integrating this whole patch into the stable branch will work?
Personally I think it makes more sense.

No.
We don't even know why/how it fixes the Windows issue, which would be
the first thing to understand before integrating a fix in stable branch.

Yes.

And the stable branch is not meant for integrating such big reworks,
it is only meant to fix bugs.

Yes.

The risk of regressions have to be avoided as much as possible.

Yes.

	--yliu