[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231222032713-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 03:29:02 -0500
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Cc: "eperezma@...hat.com" <eperezma@...hat.com>,
"xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com" <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"si-wei.liu@...cle.com" <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH vhost v4 02/15] vdpa: Add
VHOST_BACKEND_F_CHANGEABLE_VQ_ADDR_IN_SUSPEND flag
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:07:22PM +0000, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
> > > > In that case you're right, we don't need feature flags. But I think it
> > > > would be great to also move the error return in case userspace tries
> > > > to modify vq parameters out of suspend state.
> > > >
> > > On the driver side or on the core side?
> > >
> >
> > Core side.
> >
> Checking my understanding: instead of the feature flags there would be a check
> (for .set_vq_addr and .set_vq_state) to return an error if they are called under
> DRIVER_OK and not suspended state?
Yea this looks much saner, if we start adding feature flags for
each OPERATION_X_LEGAL_IN_STATE_Y then we will end up with N^2
feature bits which is not reasonable.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists