[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201008160949.41348.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:49:40 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Zang Roy <r61911@...escale.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Using virtio as a physical (wire-level) transport
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:04:19 pm Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> Am 06.08.2010 um 11:34 schrieb "Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>:
> > This problem is not limited to my new use of virtio. Virtio is
> > completely useless in a relatively common virtualization scenario:
> > x86 host with qemu-ppc guest. Or any other big endian guest system.
>
> This one actually works because we know that we're building for a BE guest.
> But I agree that it's a mess and clearly a very incorrect design decision.
Yes, since you need to know the guest's endian to virtualize it, the
correct interpretation of the virtio ring seemed the least problem. Perhaps
I went overboard in simplification here, but it seemed pure legacy.
If we did a virtio2, as has been suggested, it would be possible to address
this. You could of course do a hack where you detect the ring endianness
the first time they use it (based on avail.flags, avail.index and the
descriptor it would be quite reliable in practice).
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists