[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Add virtio Admin virtqueue
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 2/7/2022 12:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:57:13AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > +\begin{lstlisting} > > > +struct virtio_admin_cmd { > > > + /* Device-readable part */ > > > + u16 command; > > > + u8 command_specific_data[]; > > > + > > > + /* Device-writable part */ > > > + u8 status; > > > + u8 command_specific_error; > > > + u8 command_specific_result[]; > > > +}; > > > +\end{lstlisting} > > ok this abstraction is an improvement, thanks! > > > > What I'd like to see is moving a bit more format to this generic structure. > > > > From what I could gather, some commands affect a group as a whole, and > > some commands just a single member of the group. We could have a > > "destination" field for that, and a special "all of the group" > > destination for commands affecting the whole group. > > > > > > Next, trying to think about scalable iov extensions. So we > > will have groups of VFs and then SFs as the next level. > > How does one differentiate between the two? > > Maybe reserve a field for "destination type"? > > For now we have only a PCI group that composed of VFs and the PF. > > What you suggest, IMO is a definition of a generic virtio group/subsystem > that I've mentioned in the discussion of V1. > > Once we have virtio group - it should have a group id and them the admin > command can have a field calld group_id for commands that are targeted to > the whole group. > > Some commands are referring to a specific device in the group so only a > vdev_id is needed. > > Some commands are even targeted to the same device to query some info (we > have examples in this series for that), so in this case there is no need for > vdev_id nor group_id. > > So I'm sure sure we can improve common virtio_admin_cmd structure to have > these attributes since they are not mandatory because of the reasons I've > mentioned. I'm not sure I understand 100%, but try to address in the next revision and we'll discuss. > > > > The point of all this is to allow making sense of commands and > > e.g. virtualizing them for nested virt without necessarily > > knowing all of the detail about the specific command. > I don't understand this, sorry. Basically try to move stuff into generic format so it's possible to understand things without knowing detail of the command. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]