On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 10:19:38AM +0200, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > So, we could create a block-general lifetime ioctl with many reserved > bytes, or create a virtio block specific ioctl without reserved bytes > at all. I don't see the connection. virtio would often pass through lifetime info from the host. If other devices gain more info then it will make sense to add that to virtio, too. > I think that we should keep it virtio specific, and if a new lifetime > command is added to the spec with more fields, we could create a new > ioctl. > Does Everyone agree? Depends. If we expect more types, then I think we can solve this by passing an array of values. > > I think if you are going to pass struct virtio_blk_lifetime to > > userspace, better pass it as defined in the spec, in LE format. > > > It's unusual for an ioctl to produce a struct that's not in CPU > > endianness. I think the kernel should deal with endianness here. > > I'm not sure how to proceed with the endianness matter.. > > Alvaro If it's a generic ioctl then clearly it's native. For a virtio specific one, we typically use LE and I would be consistent. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
