Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: support SR-IOV

[Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>]

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2018 15:38:55 +0800
> Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Reserve a feature bit for virtio devices which support SR-IOV.
> 
> Reserving a feature bit for this makes sense, but...
> 
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > ---
> > More details can be found from this thread:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10285541/
> > 
> >  content.tex | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index 7a92cb1..62214fa 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -95,10 +95,10 @@ Feature bits are allocated as follows:
> >  \begin{description}
> >  \item[0 to 23] Feature bits for the specific device type
> >  
> > -\item[24 to 33] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue and
> > +\item[24 to 36] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue and
> >    feature negotiation mechanisms
> >  
> > -\item[34 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions.
> > +\item[37 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions.
> >  \end{description}
> >  
> >  \begin{note}
> > @@ -5348,6 +5348,8 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp
> >    \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates
> >    that all buffers are used by the device in the same
> >    order in which they have been made available.
> > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(36)] This feature indicates that
> > +  the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization.
> 
> ...shouldn't this mention 'PCI' somewhere? This feature does not make
> sense on any transport but PCI.

Yeah. When Michael suggested this feature, he also said:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10285541/
"""
It seems PCI specific so non pci transports would disable the feature
for now.
"""

Based on the current description, transports other than
PCI would have this feature bit disabled.

Do you think there is any possibility that other transports
may reuse this feature bit to do something similar?

Or do you think we should make this feature bit PCI specific
and don't leave any chance for other transports to reuse
it, e.g. by naming it as VIRTIO_F_PCI_SR_IOV?

Or do you think it's OK to still name it as VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV,
but add the word 'PCI' when talking about the capability,
e.g.:

A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it presents a PCI
SR-IOV capability structure.  A device MAY fail to operate
further if VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV is not accepted.

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie

> 
[...]