On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:00 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 16:47, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > + vmmio->hdr = (struct virtio_mmio_hdr) {
> > + .magic = {'v', 'i', 'r', 't'},
> > + .version = 1,
> > + .device_id = device_id - 0x1000 + 1,
> > + .vendor_id = PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT_QUMRANET,
> > + .queue_num_max = 256,
> > + };
>
> This isn't a PCI device, so does it make sense to use a PCI vendor
> ID here? The kernel doesn't check the vendor ID at the moment,
> but presumably the idea of the field is to allow the kernel to
> work around implementation bugs/blacklist/whatever if necessary.
> If that's the theory then it would make more sense for QEMU and
> kvm-tool to use IDs that say "this is the QEMU implementation"
> and "this is the kvm-tool implementation".
>
> (I picked 0x554D4551 for QEMU...)
>
> -- PMM
I just sheepishly filled in the only vendor ID I knew of in the virtio
spec :)
Hmm... If thats the plan, it should probably be a virtio thing (not
virtio-mmio specific).
Either way, it could also use some clarification in the spec.
--
Sasha.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
