[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wqyw63et.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:46 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Thomas Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, avi@...hat.com,
"Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio-net: inline header support
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
>> tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts.
>> They could use a good audit anyway.
>
> I agree here. Still trying to understand whether we can agree to use
> a feature bit for this, or not.
I'd *like* to imply it by the new PCI layout, but if it doesn't work
we'll add a new feature bit.
I'm resisting a feature bit, since it constrains future implementations
which could otherwise assume it.
>> This would become a glaring exception, but I'm tempted to fix it to 32
>> bytes at the same time as we get the new pci layout (ie. for the virtio
>> 1.0 spec).
>
> But this isn't a virtio-pci only issue, is it?
> qemu has s390 bus with same limmitation.
> How can we tie it to pci layout?
They can use a transport feature if they need to, of course. But
perhaps the timing with ccw will coincide with the fix, in which they
don't need to, but it might be a bit late.
Cornelia?
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