On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 17:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This is similar to what we have now. But it's still buggy: e.g. if guest > updates MAC byte by byte, we have no way to know when it's done doing > so. Do like real HW, there's plenty of options: - (better) Have a command "update MAC" sent to a ring. A command ring would be generally useful and could replace anything you do via writing to config space today. The advantage of having a read-only config space is that you significantly remove the need for synchronization. You could also have an event ring and avoid the seqlock for reading. It's MUCH better to have a fine granularity of what actually changed that having a generic "something is changing in the config space". With a new ring format allowing direct data in the ring descriptor that would be trivial. - If you really don't like a command ring, you can have a command "register", write the new MAC and send a command to make it "apply", but that's not fantastic as there's going to be a possible discrepancy between what's in the config and what's actually used. - Have a separate "MAC write" register set with the "hot" byte beeing the low order byte. writing to it updates the MAC. Etc etc... Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
