[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH RFC] virtio-pci: new configuration layout
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:56:20 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> writes: > > Some remarks from my side... > > > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:38:59 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:24:47PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > >> > > This is the new configuration layout. > >> > > > >> > > Notes: > >> > > - Everything is LE > >> > > - There's a feature bit that means spec 1.0 compliant. > >> > > - Both devices and drivers can either require the 1.0 interface > >> > > or try to include compatibility support. The spec isn't forcing > >> > > this decision. > >> > > >> > Hmm, this kind includes other changes already proposed, like the LE > >> > change and the framing change. I think this conceptually splits nicely: > >> > > >> > 1) Feature bit 32 proposal. > >> > 2) Endian change. > >> > 3) Framing change. > >> > 4) PCI layout change. > >> > >> Right - they are mostly in different parts of the document. > >> I put it all together so it's easy to see how we intend to > >> handle the transition. > >> So is everyone OK with keeping this in a single patch? > > > > The new feature bit is supposed to cover all of this, right? Then this > > should be one patch. > > Well, the new feature would be "1.0 compliant" which will cover much > more than this. We'll have a whole document on the differences between > legacy and 1.0, in fact. > > >> > > - I kept documentation of the legacy interface around, and added notes > >> > > on transition inline. They are in separate sections each clearly marked > >> > > "Legacy Interface" so we'll be able to separate them out > >> > > from the final document as necessary - for now I think it's easier > >> > > to keep it all together. > >> > > >> > Good thinking: most of us know the current spec so it's definitely > >> > clearer. And makes sure we're thinking about the transition. > >> > > >> > > Only virtio PCI has been converted. > >> > > Let's discuss this on the meeting tonight, once we figure out PCI > >> > > we can do something similar for MMIO and CCW. > >> > > >> > > @@ -137,6 +139,11 @@ Feature bits are allocated as follows: > >> > > 24 to 31: Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue and > >> > > feature negotiation mechanisms > >> > > > >> > > + 32: Feature bit must be set for any device compliant with this > >> > > + revision of the specification, and acknowledged by all device drivers. > > > > Would it make sense to have a bit 33 "rings big endian" whose validity > > depends on bit 32 set? This would make it possible for ccw to keep its > > current endianness. > > Very awkward. Our experience with bi-endian devices on PowerPC suggests > it's far better to not negotiate endian. It also avoids a branch > everywhere in the driver and host. Ok, so let's skip this feature bit and make virtio-ccw big endian for the ring? > > >> > > +Legacy Interface > >> > > + is an interface specified by an earlier draft of this specification > >> > > + (up to 0.9.X) > >> > > +Legacy Device > >> > > + is a device implemented before this specification was released, > >> > > + and implementing a legacy interface on the host side > >> > > +Legacy Driver > >> > > + is a driver implemented before this specification was released, > >> > > + and implementing a legacy interface on the guest side > >> > > + > >> > > +to simplify transition from these earlier draft interfaces, > >> > > +it is possible to implement > >> > > + > >> > > +Transitional Device > >> > > + a device supporting both drivers conforming to this > >> > > + specification, and legacy drivers > >> > > + > >> > > +Transitional Driver > >> > > + a driver supporting both devices conforming to this > >> > > + specification, and legacy devices > > > > What happens to legacy devices in the future? Current implementers > > will obviously expose legacy devices, which means future drivers need > > to be transitional or they won't work with what is currently out there. > > Will legacy stay around (for the forseeable furture)? Will legacy > > devices still be considered standard compliant (as in "compliant to the > > legacy standard")? > > Legacy devices will not be spec compliant, though we will map out the > differences for implementors and to make sure that transitional devices > & drivers are still possible. This legacy part will eventually be a > separate document. > > I expect them legacy to be firmly deprecated within a few years: new > features will probably only be offered for standard devices, and for PCI > there are some nice proposals in the standard which make life easier, > eg. for bootloaders. Is there any reason the legacy version can't stay in, with a big fat warning "new devices are not supposed to implement this"? Another thing we need to keep in mind is that switching a device driver to support a new version of a device is not the way it works on every system. On s390, there's generally no device driver as such - Linux is the oddball there. > > >> > > + > >> > > +Device and driver that require support for revision 1.0 or newer of > >> > > +the specification to function, are called non-transitional device and driver, > >> > > +respectively. > >> > > + > >> > > +Transitional Drivers can detect Legacy Devices by detecting that > >> > > +Feature bit 32 is not offered. > >> > > +Transitional devices can detect Legacy drivers by detecting that > >> > > +Feature bit 32 has not been acknowledged by driver. > > > > Will we use new feature bits for new, incompatible revisions? Or will > > we try to stay backwards compatible? > > My intent is to stay backwards compatible, using feature bits. At some > future point we may deprecate older features I suppose. ok > > >> > > +2.1.4.2.1 Legacy Interfaces: A Note on Message Framing > >> > > +----------------------- > >> > > +Regrettably, initial driver implementations used simple layouts, and > >> > > +devices came to rely on it, despite this specification wording[10]. It > >> > > +is thus recommended that when using legacy interfaces, > >> > > +drivers should be conservative in their assumptions, > >> > > +unless the VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT feature is accepted. > > > > So ANY_LAYOUT and feature bit 32 are mutually exclusive? > > I was thinking feature 32 would imply ANY_LAYOUT; there's a feature > request for that: > https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/VIRTIO-10 > > Since there seems to be consensus that we remove the SCSI commands from > virtio-blk, it seems sensible to do that (which is a blocker for > ANY_LAYOUT) and then remove ANY_LAYOUT from the non-legacy wording and > make it clear that we're always independent of framing. I was a bit confused by the diff, but that sounds sensible. > > >> Also Revision ID is only 8 bit - it's designed for hardware where > >> making a new revision is expensive. In software we'll run out of that > >> eventually. > > > > So Revision ID is a PCI-specific thing, right? Not all transports will > > necessarily have something equivalent, so they would need to depend on > > the feature bit. > > Yes. > > Cheers, > Rusty. Cornelia
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]