[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4730B753.2000901@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Dor Laor <dor.laor@...ranet.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of virtio device IDs
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> I've written a PCI virtio transport and noticed something strange.
> All current in-tree virtio devices register ID tables that match a
> specific device ID, but any vendor ID.
>
> This is incompatible with using PCI vendor/device IDs for virtio
> vendor/device IDs since vendors control what device IDs mean. A
> simple solution would be to assign a fixed vendor ID to all current
> virtio devices. This doesn't solve the problem completely though
> since you would create a conflict between the PCI vendor ID space and
> the virtio vendor ID space.
>
> The only solutions seem to be virtualizing the virtio vendor/device
> IDs (which is what I'm currently doing) or to mandate that the virtio
> vendor ID be within the PCI vendor ID space. It's probably not
> necessary to make the same requirement for device IDs though.
There's another ugly bit in the current implementation.
Right now, we would have to have every PCI vendor/device ID pair in the
virtio PCI driver ID table for every virtio device.
This means every time a virtio device is added to Linux, the virtio PCI
driver has to be modified (assuming that each virtio device uses a
unique PCI vendor/device ID) :-/
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists