On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq feature 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?).
>
> Changes from v1:
> - split the patc
On 02/07/13 10:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq feature 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?).
>
> Changes from v1:
> - split the patch so each one can be ap
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:54:19PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > mq feature 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 t
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mq feature 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?).
>
> Changes from v1:
> - split the patc
mq feature 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?).
Changes from v1:
- split the patch so each one can be applied separately
- add comments as suggested by mjt
Signed
