On 13.12.18 11:00, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * David Hildenbrand (david@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>> On 13.12.18 10:13, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * David Hildenbrand (david@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>>>> On 10.12.18 18:12, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>> Instead of assuming we had the fixed bar for the cache, use the
>>>>> value from the capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
>>>>> index 60d496c16841..55bac1465536 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
>>>>> @@ -14,11 +14,6 @@
>>>>> #include <uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h>
>>>>> #include "fuse_i.h"
>>>>>
>>>>> -enum {
>>>>> - /* PCI BAR number of the virtio-fs DAX window */
>>>>> - VIRTIO_FS_WINDOW_BAR = 2,
>>>>> -};
>>>>> -
>>>>> /* List of virtio-fs device instances and a lock for the list */
>>>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(virtio_fs_mutex);
>>>>> static LIST_HEAD(virtio_fs_instances);
>>>>> @@ -518,7 +513,7 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_dax(struct virtio_device *vdev, struct virtio_fs *fs)
>>>>> struct dev_pagemap *pgmap;
>>>>> struct pci_dev *pci_dev;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> - size_t len;
>>>>> + size_t bar_len;
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> u8 have_cache, cache_bar;
>>>>> u64 cache_offset, cache_len;
>>>>> @@ -551,17 +546,13 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_dax(struct virtio_device *vdev, struct virtio_fs *fs)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /* TODO handle case where device doesn't expose BAR? */
>>>>
>>>> For virtio-pmem we decided to not go via BARs as this would effectively
>>>> make it only usable for virtio-pci implementers. Instead, we are going
>>>> to export the applicable physical device region directly (e.g.
>>>> phys_start, phys_size in virtio config), so it is decoupled from PCI
>>>> details. Doing the same for virtio-fs would allow e.g. also virtio-ccw
>>>> to make eventually use of this.
>>>
>>> That makes it a very odd looking PCI device; I can see that with
>>> virtio-pmem it makes some sense, given that it's job is to expose
>>> arbitrary chunks of memory.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Well, the fact that your are
>>
>> - including <uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h>
>> - adding pci related code
>>
>> in/to fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c
>>
>> tells me that these properties might be better communicated on the
>> virtio layer, not on the PCI layer.
>>
>> Or do you really want to glue virtio-fs to virtio-pci for all eternity?
>
> No, these need cleaning up; and the split within the bar
> is probably going to change to be communicated via virtio layer
> rather than pci capabilities. However, I don't want to make our PCI
> device look odd, just to make portability to non-PCI devices - so it's
> right to make the split appropriately, but still to use PCI bars
> for what they were designed for.
>
> Dave
Let's discuss after the cleanup. In general I am not convinced this is
the right thing to do. Using virtio-pci for anything else than pure
transport smells like bad design to me (well, I am no virtio expert
after all ;) ). No matter what PCI bars were designed for. If we can't
get the same running with e.g. virtio-ccw or virtio-whatever, it is
broken by design (or an addon that is tightly glued to virtio-pci, if
that is the general idea).
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
