Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rate limit per DPC using both xenvif and xennet.

["Durrant, Paul" <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/06/2022 13:52, Owen Smith wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: win-pv-devel <win-pv-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of 
> Durrant, Paul
> Sent: 10 June 2022 13:27
> To: win-pv-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rate limit per DPC using both xenvif and xennet.
>
> [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments 
> unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> On 20/05/2022 15:14, Martin Harvey wrote:
> > Further development of rate limiting code, whereby both xenvif and
> > xennet co-operate across the VIF interface to decide how many packets
> > to push up the stack. This allows for the situation where NDIS could
> > provide information at upstream push time about how many more packets
> > it is prepared to accept in this DPC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Harvey <martin.harvey@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I've looked at this a bit and umm-ed and ah-ed and I think I'd like the change 
> from varargs to a struct in a separate patch. It'll mean burning a version 
> number but I still think it would be cleaner; I'll work on splitting it up.
>
>     Paul
>
>
> Would it make sense to retire the 0x0800xxxx revisions at the same time. We're 
> not hitting the device ID length limits, and would be unlikely to hit them, but 
> it does make things a bit cleaner
Sure. Probably best to do that before making the varargs change. It'll 
get rid of interface version 7. I'll stick that in the series.
  Paul