qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Tweaks around virtio-blk start


From: Fam Zheng
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Tweaks around virtio-blk start/stop
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:45:27 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, 03/21 12:15, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:57:18 +0800
> Fam Zheng <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > index 08275a9..47f8043 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> > @@ -1098,7 +1098,14 @@ void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> > 
> >  void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n)
> >  {
> > -    virtio_queue_notify_vq(&vdev->vq[n]);
> > +    VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[n];
> > +    EventNotifier *n;
> > +    n = virtio_queue_get_host_notifier(vq);
> > +    if (n) {
> 
> Isn't that always true, even if the notifier has not been setup?

You are right, this doesn't make a correct fix. But we can still do a quick
test with this as the else branch should never be used with ioeventfd=on. Am I
right?

Fam

> 
> > +        event_notifier_set(n);
> > +    } else {
> > +        virtio_queue_notify_vq(vq);
> > +    }
> >  }
> > 
> >  uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n)
> > 
> > 
> 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]