[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: Chained VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT (again!)
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:13:44PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: >> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:14:52PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I was reading through the spec, and realized that it doesn't >> >> explicitly ban chaining of indirect descriptors. After virtio-15, it >> >> says: >> >> >> >> An indirect descriptor without next field >> >> (with flags&VRING_DESC_F_NEXT off) signals the end of the descriptor. >> >> >> >> This *implies* that there can't be a "next" after an indirect, but >> >> doesn't explicitly say that a driver shouldn't do that. That was the >> >> intent, so I suggest adding to 2.4.5.3.1 Driver Requirements: Indirect >> >> Descriptors: >> >> >> >> The driver MUST NOT set the VIRTQ_DESC_F_NEXT flag on a >> >> descriptor with the VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT flag set. >> > >> > I agree, explicit is good. >> > Will you open an issue for that? >> >> Yep, I'll post a patch and then open an issue linking to it. > > OK, there are issues, great, but pls note they aren't open yet. > When you feel there was sufficient time for review on > the mailing list, please set "Fix Versions" and open them, > so we can start ballots. > > Also, was this reported by yourself? > Please remember to set environment to list name and > email of the reporter. Yes, these are all me. I went through the spec again to annotate all the requirements in the lguest source code. Cheers, Rusty.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]