On 3/11/2022 6:07 PM, 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.
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.
Isn't there a way in the SPEC today to create a queue without interrupt
vector ?
Regards,
Suwan Kim
