On 08/19/2015 07:31 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:07:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 08/16/2015 09:42 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
>>> @@ -3128,6 +3134,7 @@ struct virtio_net_config {
>>> u8 mac[6];
>>> le16 status;
>>> le16 max_virtqueue_pairs;
>>> + le16 default_mtu;
>> Looks like "mtu" is ok, consider we use "mac" instead of "default_mac".
> Good point. I'll change the name in the next version of the patch.
>
>>> };
>>> \end{lstlisting}
>>>
>>> @@ -3158,6 +3165,15 @@ by the driver after negotiation.
>>> \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} is valid only if VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is
>>> set and can be read by the driver.
>>>
>>> +\item [\field{default_mtu}] is a hint to the driver set by the
>>> + device. It is valid during feature negotiation only if
>>> + VIRTIO_NET_F_DEFAULT_MTU is offered and holds the initial value
>>> + of MTU to be used by the driver. If VIRTIO_NET_F_DEFAULT_MTU is
>>> + negotiated, the driver uses the \field{default_mtu} as an initial
>>> + value, and also reports MTU changes to the device by writes to
>>> + \field{default_mtu}. Such reporting can be used for debugging,
>>> + or it can be used for tunning MTU along the network.
>>> +
>> I vaguely remember that config is read only in some arch or transport
>> and that's why we introduce another vq cmd to confirm the announcement.
>> Probably we should do same for this?
> If so, we need to add one more feature bit to confirm the ability
> of the driver to report MTU, or we can weaken the requirement in
> conformance statement and write "the driver may report the MTU".
> What do you say?
>
> -- Victor
Either looks good for me. (Need confirm the read only issue with the
editors of other transport or arch)
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
