On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:52:49PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:54:28PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:25:42PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > + width = ops->io_readb(&test->width);
> > > > + if (width != 1 && width != 2 && width != 4)
> > > > + return false;
> > >
> > > IIUC we only have 1?
> >
> > I guess it boils what *have* does mean here.
> >
> > pci-testdev protocol allows it to be any, but hw/misc/pci-testdev.c
> > implements just 1 (yet?).
>
> Do we have other possible implementations for pci-testdev protocol?
I typed answer twice, but realized I do not get the question. :)
Could you paraphrase, please?
> > > > + sig = ops->io_readl(&test->data);
> > > > + off = ops->io_readl(&test->offset);
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_writes; i++) {
> > > > + switch (width) {
> > > > + case 1: ops->io_writeb(sig, (void *)test + off); break;
> > > > + case 2: ops->io_writew(sig, (void *)test + off); break;
> > > > + case 4: ops->io_writel(sig, (void *)test + off); break;
> > >
> > > Here as well. Could I ask why we are handling 2/4?
> >
> > Basically, because x86 had it and this implementation mimics it.
>
> Yes, actually I didn't notice that before. So I have the same question
> for vmexit.c. But of course I don't think this question is a blocker
> for the series.
I am not sure about x86, but I do not see any problem either.
> > > x86/vmexit.c is using pci-testdev as well. Maybe we can generalize the
> > > init part and share it? (Actually there is patch in my local tree for
> > > this, but haven't posted :)
> >
> > Yep, I have x86 enabler and it is very simple. But x86 is just too
> > different to try to generalize and we're not pursuing it right now.
>
> Could I ask what's the difficulties? Again this is not a block for
> sure, so, looking forward to your next version.
Well, x86 is a series of tests, very self-contained and hence very
implementation-oriented. By contrast, this version is rather stand-
alone and does not really fit.
So if one embarks to generalize, then it would be x86 wide, not this
test alone, AFAICT.
> Thanks,
>
> -- peterx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
