On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 03:47:35AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:53 PM
> >
> > On 7/27/2022 10:17 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:15 PM
> > >>
> > >> On 7/26/2022 11:56 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:46 PM
> > >>>>> When the user space which invokes netlink commands, detects that
> > >> _MQ
> > >>>> is not supported, hence it takes max_queue_pair = 1 by itself.
> > >>>> I think the kernel module have all necessary information and it is
> > >>>> the only one which have precise information of a device, so it
> > >>>> should answer precisely than let the user space guess. The kernel
> > >>>> module should be reliable than stay silent, leave the question to
> > >>>> the user space
> > >> tool.
> > >>> Kernel is reliable. It doesn’t expose a config space field if the
> > >>> field doesn’t
> > >> exist regardless of field should have default or no default.
> > >> so when you know it is one queue pair, you should answer one, not try
> > >> to guess.
> > >>> User space should not guess either. User space gets to see if _MQ
> > >> present/not present. If _MQ present than get reliable data from kernel.
> > >>> If _MQ not present, it means this device has one VQ pair.
> > >> it is still a guess, right? And all user space tools implemented this
> > >> feature need to guess
> > > No. it is not a guess.
> > > It is explicitly checking the _MQ feature and deriving the value.
> > > The code you proposed will be present in the user space.
> > > It will be uniform for _MQ and 10 other features that are present now and
> > in the future.
> > MQ and other features like RSS are different. If there is no _RSS_XX, there
> > are no attributes like max_rss_key_size, and there is not a default value.
> > But for MQ, we know it has to be 1 wihtout _MQ.
> "we" = user space.
> To keep the consistency among all the config space fields.
Actually I looked and the code some more and I'm puzzled:
struct virtio_net_config config = {};
u64 features;
u16 val_u16;
vdpa_get_config_unlocked(vdev, 0, &config, sizeof(config));
if (nla_put(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR, sizeof(config.mac),
config.mac))
return -EMSGSIZE;
Mac returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC
val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.status);
if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_STATUS, val_u16))
return -EMSGSIZE;
status returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS
val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.mtu);
if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU, val_u16))
return -EMSGSIZE;
MTU returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU
What's going on here?
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
