Prev: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless tree with the net tree
Next: NMI & register clash handling infrastructure
From: Michael S. Tsirkin on 6 Jun 2010 05:20
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 01:40:26PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:12:05 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:46:49PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > I'm uncomfortable with moving a field.
> > >
> > > We haven't done that before and I wonder what will break with old code.
> > With e.g. my patch, We only do this conditionally when bit is negotitated.
> Of course, but see this change:
> commit ef688e151c00e5d529703be9a04fd506df8bc54e
> Author: Rusty Russell <rusty(a)rustcorp.com.au>
> Date: Fri Jun 12 22:16:35 2009 -0600
> virtio: meet virtio spec by finalizing features before using device
> Virtio devices are supposed to negotiate features before they start using
> the device, but the current code doesn't do this. This is because the
> driver's probe() function invariably has to add buffers to a virtqueue,
> or probe the disk (virtio_blk).
> This currently doesn't matter since no existing backend is strict about
> the feature negotiation. But it's possible to imagine a future feature
> which completely changes how a device operates: in this case, we'd need
> to acknowledge it before using the device.
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty(a)rustcorp.com.au>
> Now, this isn't impossible to overcome: we know that if they use the ring
> before completing feature negotiation then they don't understand the new
> But we have to be aware of that on the qemu side. Are we?
I think we are ok. virtqueue_init which sets the avail/ysed pointers is
called when we write the base address. So we only need to be careful
and not change this feature bit after creating the rings.
> > > Should we instead just abandon the flags field and use last_used only?
> > > Or, more radically, put flags == last_used when the feature is on?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Rusty.
> > Hmm, e.g. with TX and virtio net, we almost never want interrupts,
> > whatever the index value.
> Good point. OK, I give in, I'll take your patch which moves the fields
> to the end. Is that your preference?
Yes, I think so.
You mean PATCHv3 unchanged with 254 byte padding?
> Please be careful with the qemu side though...
> It's not inconceivable that I'll write that virtio cacheline simulator this
> (coming) week, too...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/