On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq flag is not needed: we can look at the number of queues and set
> the flag accordingly.
> Removing this feature removes ambiguity (what does it mean to have
> queues=2 with mq=off?), and simplifies compatibility hacks.
> work-around fo
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:41:47AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq flag is not needed: we can look at the number of queues and set
> the flag accordingly.
> Removing this feature removes ambiguity (what does it mean to have
> queues=2 with mq=off?), and simplifies compatibility hacks.
> work-
04.02.2013 11:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
mq flag is not needed: we can look at the number of queues and set
the flag accordingly.
Removing this feature removes ambiguity (what does it mean to have
queues=2 with mq=off?), and simplifies compatibility hacks.
work-around for buggy windows
guests.
On 02/04/2013 03:41 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq flag is not needed: we can look at the number of queues and set
> the flag accordingly.
> Removing this feature removes ambiguity (what does it mean to have
> queues=2 with mq=off?), and simplifies compatibility hacks.
> work-around for buggy w
mq flag is not needed: we can look at the number of queues and set
the flag accordingly.
Removing this feature removes ambiguity (what does it mean to have
queues=2 with mq=off?), and simplifies compatibility hacks.
work-around for buggy windows
guests.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
---
hw/p
