On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:14:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:54:31PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:57:28 +0200, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 22:52 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:24:47PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > It'll be a bit harder deprecating it in the future. > > > > > > > > Harder than ... what ? > > > > > > Harder than allowing devices not to present it at all if new layout > > > config is used. Right now the simple implementation is to use MMIO for > > > config and device specific, and let it fallback to legacy for ISR and > > > notifications (and therefore, this is probably how everybody will > > > implement it), which means that when you do want to deprecate legacy, > > > there will be extra work to be done then, instead of doing it now. > > > > Indeed, I'd like to see two changes to your proposal: > > > > (1) It should be all or nothing. If a driver can find the virtio header > > capability, it should only use the capabilties. Otherwise, it > > should fall back to legacy. > > Okay, but going forward, if we add more capabilities, we probably won't > want to require them and fail to load if not there. That's really why I > wanted to make the failover ignore any capability separately - to make > this future proof. I'm not terribly fixated on this, it just seemed a > bit more symmetrical to treat all capabilities in the same way. Hmm? > > > Your draft suggests a mix is possible; > > I prefer a clean failure (ie. one day don't present a BAR 0 *at > > all*, so ancient drivers just fail to load.). > > Just to clarify, as written in draft this is possible with the current > spec proposal. So I'm guessing there's some other motivation that you > had in mind? > > > (2) There's no huge win in keeping the same layout. Let's make some > > cleanups. > > About this last point - what cleanups do you have in mind? Just move > some registers around? I guess we could put feature bits near each > other, and move device status towards the end to avoid wasting 3 bytes. > The win seems minimal, but the change does make legacy hypervisor > support in guests more cumbersome, as we need to spread coditional code > around instead of localizing it in the initialization path. > > > There are more users ahead of us then behind us (I > > hope!). > > In that case isn't it safe to assume we'll find some uses > for the reserved registers? > > > But I think this is the right direction! > > > > Thanks, > > Rusty. Note: waiting on response to the above before I tweak the spec again. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
