[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141202193930.2b8750f7.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 19:39:30 +0100
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] virtio_balloon: convert to virtio 1.0
endian-ness
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:44:06 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> balloon device is not part of virtio 1.0 spec. Still, it's easy enough
> to make it handle endian-ness exactly as other virtio 1.0 devices: what
> we gain from this, is that there's no need to special-case it in virtio
> core.
Well, the balloon is weird in a number of ways, including its always
little-endian config space.
But I'm not quite sure the spec covers this?
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/virtio_balloon.h | 5 +++--
> drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> struct virtio_balloon_stat {
> - __u16 tag;
> - __u64 val;
> + __virtio16 tag;
> + __virtio64 val;
> } __attribute__((packed));
Would the respective fields in the spec need updating? While it is
actually talking about legacy requirements, the fields are not
specified as __virtio{16,64}.
Also, is changing the stat fields enough? I've not looked into balloon
operation, but does the payload need some endianess conversion as well?
--
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