On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:00:04PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:51:26 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:34:55 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:02:58PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:46:45 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:26:58 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

For some places on data path, it might be worth it
to cache the correct value e.g. as part of device
structure. This replaces a branch with a memory load,
so the gain would have to be measured, best done
separately?

I think we'll want to do some measuring once the basic structure is
in place anyway.

What's meant by in place here?

That this patchset is ready :)

Also it's ready to the level where benchmarking is possible, right?  I
don't think you should wait until we finish polishing up commit
messages.

My point is that I haven't even found time yet to test this
thouroughly :(

If my experience shows anything, it's unlikely we'll get appropriate
testing without code being upstream first.
That's why I pushed on with sparse tagging btw.
This way we can be reasonably sure we didn't miss some path.

I know that I'm likely the only one to test ccw (unless I manage to get
some other also-busy people to try this out).

What's the status of virtio-pci, btw? Can people actually test this
sanely?

Sure, I'm testing that it's not broken by these patches.
Others can do so, too.

Once ccw is done on host and guest (will be complete after I
send v8), it will be easier to add virtio 1.0 for more transports.

OTOH if we require that everything is ready and perfect before merging
anything we'll never get anywhere.

-- 
MST