On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 04:32:58PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:41:07AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 03/02/2017 07:16 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > >We used to allocate queues based on
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:41:07AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03/02/2017 07:16 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > >We used to allocate queues based on the index from SET_VRING_CALL
> > >request: if corresponding queue hasn't
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:41:07AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>
> On 03/02/2017 07:16 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >We used to allocate queues based on the index from SET_VRING_CALL
> >request: if corresponding queue hasn't been allocated, allocate it.
> >
> >Though it's pratically right (it's t
On 03/02/2017 07:16 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
We used to allocate queues based on the index from SET_VRING_CALL
request: if corresponding queue hasn't been allocated, allocate it.
Though it's pratically right (it's the first per-vring request we
will get from QEMU for vhost-user negotiation), but
We used to allocate queues based on the index from SET_VRING_CALL
request: if corresponding queue hasn't been allocated, allocate it.
Though it's pratically right (it's the first per-vring request we
will get from QEMU for vhost-user negotiation), but it's not technically
right: it's not documente
We used to allocate queues based on the index from SET_VRING_CALL
request: if corresponding queue hasn't been allocated, allocate it.
Though it's pratically right (it's the first per-vring request we
will get from QEMU for vhost-user negotiation), but it's not technically
right: it's not documente
6 matches
Mail list logo
