On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 02:00:25PM +0200, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > Depends. If we expect more types, then I think we
> > can solve this by passing an array of values.
>
>
> Good idea!
>
> We could pass something like virtio_blk_lifetime_ioctl struct to userspace:
>
> enum blk_lifetime_type {
> VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_PRE_EOL_TYPE_A_B = 1,
> };
>
> struct virtio_blk_lifetime_element {
> void *data;
> enum blk_lifetime_type;
> };
>
> struct virtio_blk_lifetime_ioctl {
> struct virtio_blk_lifetime_element elements[];
> u32 elements_num;
> };
>
> If just VIRTIO_BLK_F_LIFETIME is negotiated, the array size is 1, and
> the element type is VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_PRE_EOL_TYPE_A_B, so the user
> will know that this is a virtio_blk_lifetime struct.
> This seems general enough to handle future additions and to handle out
> of order types (if for example VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME is not negotiated
> and VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_FUTURE is).
>
> The only downside I can think of is if we add new fields to the struct
> virtio_blk_lifetime struct, instead of creating a new, dedicated
> struct in the spec.
> For example:
>
> struct virtio_blk_lifetime {
> le16 pre_eol_info;
> le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_a;
> le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_b;
> le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_c; //only if
> VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_FUTURE is negotiated
> };
>
> In this case, we may need to split it into 2 different structs, and
> pass it as 2 elements to userspace.
>
> What do you think?
> Should I go ahead and create a new version?
>
>
> Alvaro
And now is this generic enough to disconnect from virtio and
make it a generic blk thing?
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
