On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:22:42AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:13:06 -0500, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Maybe just make this a hidden option like x-miio? > > > > x-violate-the-virtio-spec-to-trick-old-linux-drivers-into-working-on-power? > > "To configure the device, we use the first I/O region of the PCI > device." > > Meh, it does sound a little like we are specifying that it's an PCI I/O > bar. > > Let's resurrect the PCI-v2 idea, which is ready to implement now, and a > nice cleanup? Detach it from the change-of-ring-format idea which is > turning out to be a tarpit. > > Thanks, > Rusty. Yes. But it seems silly to even write code to play with device config in memory when we agreed the right thing to do is to use a config vq everywhere. Now a question: does a oconfig vq look like a PCI specific feature to you, a work-around for lack of multibyte atomic accesses? If yes it's sane to make it a PCI capability. Or is it something most transports would need? If yes we need a feature bit and this is a chicken and egg problem ... > -- > 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
