[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Created: (VIRTIO-35) race condition with multi-dword config accesses
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 03:33:33PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 21:59 +0100, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > MUST always look at the > > > > VIRTIO_1 feature bit to check whether device supports the new interface > > > > (as opposed to checking the revision). > > > > > > The version register has one intention - make the changes of the control > > > registers layout (except for the first two of them :-) easy. Sounds like > > > this is where we are. No if, buts or guessing - different register > > > layout, different version. So that's the transport. > > > > > > The feature bit is still required for the functional drivers (block, > > > net, scsi etc). Unless I don't understand the idea :-) > > > > > > It seems that it would be possible to have a legacy functional device > > > with new MMIO control register layout. I'm not sure this would be > > > useful, but it should be possible. > > > > I'm sorry I don't understand. We have a set of terms > > defined in the spec now- transitional non transitinal legacy. > > Can we frame discussion in these terms please? > > Changing version makes it a non transitional device. > > I am asking for ability to make transitinal > > devices as well, this means that > > - devices must have ability to have version 1 > > - drivers must not use version to detect legacy interface > > You forgot to define what do "device" and "driver" mean then :-P > > I look at the problem as being divided into the transport interface > (driven in Linux by platform_driver virtio_mmio_driver) and the virtio > device (driven by struct virtio_driver virtio_blk). Is there any problem > with this point of view? > > Now, the virtio_blk driver can be legacy, transitional or > non-transitional. I have no problem with that. MMIO transport is > completely transparent in terms of features, including > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. > > At the same time virtio_mmio *driver* will be able to drive only version > 1 of the transport, only version 2 of the transport or both versions of > the transport. The host-side transport implementation will have register > layout of version 1 *or* 2 and will *not* change behaviour in runtime > depending on VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. Is there any problem with this? > If you > prefer I can call version 1 "legacy", and version 2 "non-transitional". > I have no problem with this. > > I believe that with this approach, everything should Just Work (TM). > > Paweł Fine, but incomplete. What I am saying is that version field must not be the version of the transport. It must only be there to declare that device is non transitional. The virtio_mmio driver must not look at the version field to detect whether device supports virtio 1.0. Instead it must only look at whether device exposes VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. I believe with this approach, everything should Just Work (TM) *and* if someone wants to implement a transitional device after all, one will be able to . -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]