On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:25 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> Although the top level ioctls are probably size and layout compatible,
>> I do not think that the deeper ioctls can be called by compat binaries
>> without some translations in order
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> Although the top level ioctls are probably size and layout compatible,
> I do not think that the deeper ioctls can be called by compat binaries
> without some translations in order for them to work.
Ok, thanks -- I have only tested VHOST_V
This will allow usage of vsock from 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit
kernel.
Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
index 0d14e2ff19f16..ee0c385d9fe54 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:26:05AM -0700, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> This will allow usage of vsock from 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit
>> kernel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao
>
> I think you need to co
This will allow usage of vsock from 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit
kernel.
Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
index 0d14e2ff19f16..d0e65e92110e5 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
78 to 18446744072636378898)
[-Werror, -Wswitch]
case VHOST_GET_VRING_BASE:
3221794578 is 0xC008AF12 in hex
18446744072636378898 is 0xC008AF12 in hex
Fix this by using unsigned ints in the function signature for
vhost_vring_ioctl().
Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao
---
drivers/vhost/vh
On 10/3/07, Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sonny a écrit :
> > Hello
> > This is a repost, there seems to have a misunderstanding before.
> >
> > I hope this is the right place to ask this. Does any know if there is a
> > substantial diffe
Hello
This is a repost, there seems to have a misunderstanding before.
I hope this is the right place to ask this. Does any know if there is a
substantial difference in the performance of the traffic controller
between kernel 2.4 and 2.6. We tested it using 1 iperf server and use
250 and 500 clien
Hello
I hope this is the right place to ask this.Does any know if there is a
substantial difference in the performance of the traffic controller
between kernel 2.4 and 2.6. We tested it using 1 iperf server and use
250 and 500 clients, altering the burst. We use the top command to
check the idle ti
