On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:46 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am > >> tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts. > >> They could use a good audit anyway. > > > > I agree here. Still trying to understand whether we can agree to use > > a feature bit for this, or not. > > I'd *like* to imply it by the new PCI layout, but if it doesn't work > we'll add a new feature bit. > > I'm resisting a feature bit, since it constrains future implementations > which could otherwise assume it. > > >> This would become a glaring exception, but I'm tempted to fix it to 32 > >> bytes at the same time as we get the new pci layout (ie. for the virtio > >> 1.0 spec). > > > > But this isn't a virtio-pci only issue, is it? > > qemu has s390 bus with same limmitation. > > How can we tie it to pci layout? > > They can use a transport feature if they need to, of course. But > perhaps the timing with ccw will coincide with the fix, in which they > don't need to, but it might be a bit late. > > Cornelia? My virtio-ccw host code is still going through a bit of rework, so it might well go in after the fix. There's also the existing (non-spec'ed) s390-virtio transport. While it will likely be deprecated sometime in the future, it should probably get a feature bit for consistency's sake. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > -- 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
