[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2158059-6509-7702-f52a-e497ce899293@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:44:19 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/17] vdpa_sim: add get_config callback in
vdpasim_dev_attr
On 2020/11/30 下午10:14, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:25:31AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/11/26 下午10:49, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> The get_config callback can be used by the device to fill the
>>> config structure.
>>> The callback will be invoked in vdpasim_get_config() before copying
>>> bytes into caller buffer.
>>>
>>> Move vDPA-net config updates from vdpasim_set_features() in the
>>> new vdpasim_net_get_config() callback.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>>> b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>>> index c07ddf6af720..8b87ce0485b6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
>>> @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ struct vdpasim_virtqueue {
>>> #define VDPASIM_NET_FEATURES (VDPASIM_FEATURES | \
>>> (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC))
>>> +struct vdpasim;
>>> +
>>> struct vdpasim_dev_attr {
>>> u64 supported_features;
>>> size_t config_size;
>>> @@ -65,6 +67,7 @@ struct vdpasim_dev_attr {
>>> u32 id;
>>> work_func_t work_fn;
>>> + void (*get_config)(struct vdpasim *vdpasim, void *config);
>>> };
>>> /* State of each vdpasim device */
>>> @@ -520,8 +523,6 @@ static u64 vdpasim_get_features(struct
>>> vdpa_device *vdpa)
>>> static int vdpasim_set_features(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u64
>>> features)
>>> {
>>> struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);
>>> - struct virtio_net_config *config =
>>> - (struct virtio_net_config *)vdpasim->config;
>>> /* DMA mapping must be done by driver */
>>> if (!(features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
>>> @@ -529,15 +530,6 @@ static int vdpasim_set_features(struct
>>> vdpa_device *vdpa, u64 features)
>>> vdpasim->features = features &
>>> vdpasim->dev_attr.supported_features;
>>> - /* We generally only know whether guest is using the legacy
>>> interface
>>> - * here, so generally that's the earliest we can set config
>>> fields.
>>> - * Note: We actually require VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM above which
>>> - * implies VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, but let's not try to be clever
>>> here.
>>> - */
>>> -
>>> - config->mtu = cpu_to_vdpasim16(vdpasim, 1500);
>>> - config->status = cpu_to_vdpasim16(vdpasim, VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP);
>>> - memcpy(config->mac, macaddr_buf, ETH_ALEN);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -593,8 +585,12 @@ static void vdpasim_get_config(struct
>>> vdpa_device *vdpa, unsigned int offset,
>>> {
>>> struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);
>>> - if (offset + len < vdpasim->dev_attr.config_size)
>>> - memcpy(buf, vdpasim->config + offset, len);
>>> + if (offset + len > vdpasim->dev_attr.config_size)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + vdpasim->dev_attr.get_config(vdpasim, vdpasim->config);
>>> +
>>> + memcpy(buf, vdpasim->config + offset, len);
>>> }
>>
>>
>> I wonder how much value we can get from vdpasim->config consider
>> we've already had get_config() method.
>>
>> Is it possible to copy to the buffer directly here?
>
> I had thought of eliminating it too, but then I wanted to do something
> similar to what we do in QEMU (hw/virtio/virtio.c), leaving in the
> simulator core the buffer, the memory copy (handling offset and len),
> and the boundary checks.
>
> In this way each device should simply fill the entire configuration
> and we can avoid code duplication.
>
> Storing the configuration in the core may also be useful if some
> device needs to support config writes.
I think in that way we need should provide config_write().
>
> Do you think it makes sense, or is it better to move everything in the
> device?
I prefer to do that in the device but it's also fine keep what the patch
has done.
Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists