From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753713AbdD0GaL (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:30:11 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:3036 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752725AbdD0GaB (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:30:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,257,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="94384207" Message-ID: <59019055.3040708@intel.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:31:49 +0800 From: Wei Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" CC: "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "david@redhat.com" , "Hansen, Dave" , "cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mgorman@techsingularity.net" , "aarcange@redhat.com" , "amit.shah@redhat.com" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "liliang.opensource@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON_CHUNKS References: <1492076108-117229-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <1492076108-117229-3-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <20170413184040-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58F08A60.2020407@intel.com> <20170415000934-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58F43801.7060004@intel.com> <286AC319A985734F985F78AFA26841F7391F6DCD@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20170426192753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20170426192753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: >> Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback? > I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are requesting. Oh, just some trivial things (e.g. use a field in the header, hdr->chunks to indicate the number of chunks in the payload) that wasn't confirmed. I will prepare the new version with fixing the agreed issues, and we can continue to discuss those parts if you still find them improper. > > The interface looks reasonable now, even though there's > a way to make it even simpler if we can limit chunk size > to 2G (in fact 4G - 1). Do you think we can live with this > limitation? Yes, I think we can. So, is it good to change to use the previous 64-bit chunk format (52-bit base + 12-bit size)? > > But the code still needs some cleanup. > OK. We'll also still to discuss your comments in the patch 05. Best, Wei