On 2021/1/4 上午4:37, Elena Afanasova wrote:
On Thu, 2020-12-31 at 11:46 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/12/29 下午6:02, Elena Afanasova wrote:
Signed-off-by: Elena Afanasova<eafanasova@xxxxxxxxx>
---
virt/kvm/ioregion.c | 157
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 157 insertions(+)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/ioregion.c b/virt/kvm/ioregion.c
index a200c3761343..8523f4126337 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/ioregion.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/ioregion.c
@@ -4,6 +4,33 @@
#include <kvm/iodev.h>
#include "eventfd.h"
+/* Wire protocol */
+struct ioregionfd_cmd {
+ __u32 info;
+ __u32 padding;
+ __u64 user_data;
+ __u64 offset;
+ __u64 data;
+};
+
I wonder do we need a seq in the protocol. It might be useful if we
allow a pair of file descriptors to be used for multiple different
ranges.
I think it might be helpful in the case of out-of-order requests.
In the case of in order requests seq field seems not to be necessary
since there will be cmds/replies serialization. I’ll include the
synchronization code in a RFC v2 series.
See my reply to V1. It might be helpful for the case of using single
ioregionfd for multiple ranges.
Thanks
Thanks
+struct ioregionfd_resp {
+ __u64 data;
+ __u8 pad[24];
+};
