Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:18:08 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects |
| |
On 08/17/2009 06:09 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out specific >> differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll be glad to hear >> (and steal) them though. >> >> > You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh? > >
If I've offended you, I apologize.
> Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it > apparently falls on deaf ears. >
Well, I'm sorry, I truly don't think I've had that question answered with specificity. I'm really interested in it (out of a selfish desire to improve virtio), but the only comment I recall from you was to the effect that the virtio rings were better than ioq in terms of cache placement.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |