[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 Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:27:58 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> writes: > > On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:56:20 +0930 > > Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> writes: > >> > 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? > > That's one option: it would allow current Linux guests to do a > compile-time endian switch because we currently assume ARCH=s390 is > equivalent to "using virtio-ccw only". QEMU may be able to make the > same assumption. > > I worry about future virtio-pci on s390, where this issue will become > more complicated. "LE everywhere" is a simple rule. I don't see how virtio-pci could be made to work with the s390 pci implementation, so I don't think we will see anything but virtio-ccw on s390 machines. > > We still have the question of the endian of per-device headers > (eg. virtio-blk header) and per-device config space. I'm assuming we'll > use the same endian as for the ring. Config "space" for virtio-ccw is not accessed through memory writes but through special channel commands. Whether it is big or little endian is completely orthogonal to the endianness of the ring etc. - both would be fine. Cornelia
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]