[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio-ccw: introduce revisions
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:23:50 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:40:28PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:15:33 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:02:57PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:34:30 +0300 > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:19:05PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > Provide a new ccw that allows devices and drivers to operate on selected > > > > > > revision levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO-42 > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > So basically, CCW_CMD_SET_VIRTIO_REV re-implements the VIRTIO_1 feature > > > > > bit in a device specific manner. > > > > > Now that we have FEATURES_OK, this does not seem to be needed? > > > > > > > > The idea was to implement something like a 'revision id', which we > > > > didn't have for ccw. It also allows for negotiating (the driver can try > > > > revisions until it finds one that the device accepts) and extra > > > > configuration specifics (the currently unused data field). As it needs > > > > to be done before any other channel commands, it also allows for early > > > > fencing. > > > > > > So does not the new initialization sequence and the new > > > FEATURES_OK flag handle all that? > > > I just did a commit - could you take a look please? > > > > I don't think the features stuff would allow for extra configuration > > data? > > Yes but what is this extra data? This might be special queue-configuration limits or so. Just a placeholder so that we don't need to come up with a new mechanism later. > > > > > > > > If not and we need an extra hand-shake - shouldn't it be > > > generic and not transport specific? > > > > > > > I'm trying to introduce a revision mechanism here, which pci/mmio seem > > to have natively but ccw hasn't. > > If we'll never want to use the > > exisiting revision mechanism for anything virtio specific, we can > > probably ditch this. But if we do, all transports should have something > > like that. > > So far revisions didn't work well for PCI. > Basically the issue is that it's a vague kind of thing. > Imagine that we had the proposed mechanism in place. > Which revision does a transitional driver advertise? > I guess it could start with some value and decrement until success, > but you don't actually seem to say in spec that it should. That's actually what I had in mind: Try a revision; if it doesn't work, try another one. If your driver does not want to support legacy devices, don't try revision 0. Was my description too vague? >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]