On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:46:29PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:33:31 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_net.h b/include/linux/virtio_net.h > > > index 970d5a2..44a38d6 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/virtio_net.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/virtio_net.h > > > @@ -49,8 +49,10 @@ > > > #define VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_RX 18 /* Control channel RX mode support */ > > > #define VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VLAN 19 /* Control channel VLAN filtering */ > > > #define VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_RX_EXTRA 20 /* Extra RX mode control support */ > > > +#define VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ANNOUNCE 21 /* Guest can send gratituous packet */ > > > > > > #define VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP 1 /* Link is up */ > > > +#define VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE 2 /* Announcement is needed */ > > > > I would put this in bit 8 (0x100), this way low status byte > > is RO, high byte is RW. > > The whole idea of acking by clearing the bit is unreliable, moving to a > separate byte just controls the damage. > > How about you use bits 8-15 as a counter? It's still theoretically > unreliable if 256 notifications pass before the guest notices, but it's > probably better and clearer than this. > > I leave the final call to MST though. > > Thanks, > Rusty. I guess the point was that we want a single packet so we don't care if multiple notifications are coalesced into a single one. > -- > How could I marry someone with more hair than me? http://baldalex.org _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
