Re: [PATCH v2] content: document SR-IOV driver requirements

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 19:14:49 +0800
Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri,  8 Jun 2018 10:07:01 +0800
> > Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Document the driver requirements for the VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV
> > > feature bit.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > > Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/13
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - Fix the commit message (MST);
> > > - Improve the wording (MST);
> > > - Drop unnecessary parts (MST);
> > > 
> > >  content.tex | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > > index be18234..f996fad 100644
> > > --- a/content.tex
> > > +++ b/content.tex
> > > @@ -5387,6 +5387,21 @@ A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER if it is offered.
> > >  If VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER has been negotiated, a driver MUST use
> > >  the barriers suitable for hardware devices.
> > >  
> > > +If VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV has been negotiated, a driver MAY enable
> > > +virtual functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > +structure.  A driver MUST NOT negotiate VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if
> > > +the device does not have a PCI SR-IOV capability structure
> > > +or is not a PCI device.  A driver MUST negotiate  
> > 
> > Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why should the device offer
> > the feature in the first place if it does not support the functionality?  
> 
> The device is not allowed to offer the feature if it
> doesn't support the functionality.
> 
> From my understanding, Michael suggested this to make
> sure that in the future, the existing drivers won't
> accept this feature bit when the VF or other transport
> devices offer this feature bit, because some changes
> may be necessary for drivers to really support this
> feature offered by those devices.

So, this is supposed to be a safety net? Ok.

> 
> >   
> > > +VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV and complete the feature negotiation
> > > +(including checking the FEATURES_OK \field{status} bit)
> > > +before enabling virtual functions through the device's
> > > +PCI SR-IOV capability structure.  After once successfully
> > > +negotiating VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV, the driver MAY enable virtual
> > > +functions through the device's PCI SR-IOV capability
> > > +structure even if the device or the system has been fully
> > > +or partially reset, and even without re-negotiating
> > > +VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV after the reset.  
> > 
> > So, what is the general lifetime of this feature supposed to be? As
> > written here, the driver needs to negotiate the feature once and then
> > may enable virtual functions at any time in all eternity. Is this
> > intended to accommodate hardware implementations, where some kind of
> > switch is flipped once and then the functionality is available?
> > 
> > Also, as the device will need to negotiate the feature at least once,
> > what is stopping it from negotiating it again in the future? Is this
> > wording intended to allow the driver to simply use virtual functions on
> > resume etc. prior to feature negotiation?  
> 
> This isn't intended to accommodate hardware implementations.
> 
> Yes, this is intended to allow the driver to simply use virtual
> functions on resume etc. prior to feature negotiation.
> 
> > 
> > It might be helpful to add some explanatory text outside of the
> > conformance statement so we don't stumble over this in the future.  
> 
> Do you have any more specific suggestions about this?

Sorry, not really. Maybe see the other branch of this discussion?

> It would be quite helpful! Thanks a lot!
> 
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie
> 
> >   
> > > +
> > >  \devicenormative{\section}{Reserved Feature Bits}{Reserved Feature Bits}
> > >  
> > >  A device MUST offer VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1.  A device MAY fail to operate further  
> >