Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:

Rusty Russell wrote:

quoted

Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct
virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an
index into that.  Then we can trivially add a corresponding bit array. 

That may force the virtio backend to do things it doesn't want to.

Well, I have two implementations, and both ids already fit this model so
I have some confidence.  I just need to add the set_bit/clear_bit to the
read/write one, and use sync_clear_bit to the descriptor-based one
(which I suspect will actually get a little cleaner).

So I think this constraint is a reasonable thing to add anyway.

quoted

This also makes the "id" easier to use from the driver side: if we add a
"max_id" field it can size its own arrays if it wants to.  Gets rid of
the linked-list in the block driver...
  

How about

    struct virtio_completion {
        unsigned long length;
        void *data;
    };

    int virtio_complete(struct virtio_completion *completions, int nr);

where 'data' is an opaque pointer passed by the device during add_*buf()?

Other than the fact that the driver will look less like a normal driver,
it's actually harder to write the net driver if that complete call can
happen off an interrupt: we can't free skbs in interrupt context, which
is why the used-outbuf cleanup is currently done (inefficiently, but
that's orthogonal) in the xmit routine.

I'll code up the modifications now and check if I'm right about the
impact on the code.  I might have to come up with something else...

Cheers,
Rusty.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/