On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 01:07:23AM +0900, Suwan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:38:07AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:28:32AM +0900, Suwan Kim wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > > index d888f013d9ff..3fcaf937afe1 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > > @@ -119,8 +119,9 @@ struct virtio_blk_config {
> > > * deallocation of one or more of the sectors.
> > > */
> > > __u8 write_zeroes_may_unmap;
> > > + __u8 unused1;
> > >
> > > - __u8 unused1[3];
> > > + __virtio16 num_poll_queues;
> > > } __attribute__((packed));
> >
> > Same as any virtio UAPI change, this has to go through the virtio TC.
Notice this pls. Remember to copy one of the TC mailing lists.
> > In particular I don't think gating a new config field on
> > an existing feature flag is a good idea.
>
> Did you mean that the polling should be based on a new feature like
> "VIRTIO_BLK_F_POLL" and be added at the end of features_legacy[]
> and features[]? If then, I will add the new feture flag and resend it.
>
> Regards,
> Suwan Kim
