# Re: \[PATCH 06/18\] virtio\_ring: avail event index interface

- From: Rusty Russell \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-05-09 05:53:57 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/05/3712602
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/05/3711132/t.md

```text
On Wed, 4 May 2011 23:51:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" [ref] wrote:
> Define a new feature bit for the host to
> declare that it uses an avail_event index
> (like Xen) instead of a feature bit
> to enable/disable interrupts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/virtio_ring.h |   11 ++++++++---
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> index f5c1b75..f791772 100644
> --- a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@
>  /* The Guest publishes the used index for which it expects an interrupt
>   * at the end of the avail ring. Host should ignore the avail->flags field. */
>  #define VIRTIO_RING_F_USED_EVENT_IDX	29
> +/* The Host publishes the avail index for which it expects a kick
> + * at the end of the used ring. Guest should ignore the used->flags field. */
> +#define VIRTIO_RING_F_AVAIL_EVENT_IDX	32

Are you really sure we want to separate the two?  Seems a little simpler
to have one bit to mean "we're publishing our threshold".  For someone
implementing this from scratch, it's a little simpler.

Or are there cases where the old style makes more sense?

Thanks,
Rusty.
```