Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] admin: introduce virtio admin virtqueues

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 23 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:30:25AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 20 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > +Administration virtqueues exists for a certain owner device if
>> >> > +VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ feature has been negotiated. The index of the
>> >> > +first administration virtqueue and their number is exposed by the
>> >> > +owner device in a transport specific manner.
>> >> 
>> >> (Do we always expect admin virtqueues to use a range of indices, i.e. no
>> >> holes? That seems a bit limiting.)
>> >
>> > For the device?
>> > I frankly feel it's enough, yea.
>> 
>> About how many admin virtqueues per device are we thinking for current
>> use cases, anyway? If it's usually just one or two, the range would not
>> really be limiting.
>
> I think it's one or two for now, yes. E.g. we could use
> one for SRIOV and one for the (TBD) SIOV.

Then let's stick with the reange.