Re: [Xen-devel] RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:58 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Campbell
> > Sent: 13 March 2014 10:03
> > To: Paul Durrant
> > Cc: Zoltan Kiss; Wei Liu; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tim (Xen.org)
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness
> > 
> > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 09:26 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > guarantee that netback will always respond in order on the rx ring.
> > 
> > I don't believe this is guaranteed byt the protocol, even if it happens
> > to work out that way for the Linux netback implementation.
> > 
> 
> Indeed it's not guaranteed by the protocol but it's the only way that
> (non-prefix) GSO can possibly work, which is why I think something
> really needs to be documented.

There are possibly ordering constraints on the completion of the gso
info slot and the rest but I don't think there are any such restrictions
on the fragment slots themselves, are there?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel