On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:24:13 +0100 "Daniel P. Berrange" <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:07:38AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 09.08.2017 10:27, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:04 +0200 > > > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 09.08.2017 09:17, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > >>> Nothing in fsdev/ or hw/9pfs/ depends on pci; it should rather depend > > >>> on CONFIG_VIRTFS and on the presence of an appropriate virtio transport > > >>> device. > > >>> > > >>> Let's introduce CONFIG_VIRTIO_CCW to cover s390x and check for > > >>> CONFIG_VIRTFS && (CONFIG_VIRTIO_PCI || CONFIG_VIRTIO_CCW). > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > > >>> --- > > >>> > > >>> Changes v1->v2: drop extraneous spaces, fix build on cris > > >>> > > >>> --- > > >>> default-configs/s390x-softmmu.mak | 1 + > > >>> fsdev/Makefile.objs | 9 +++------ > > >>> hw/Makefile.objs | 2 +- > > >>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > [...] > > >> > > >> Patch should be fine now, I think... > > >> > > >> But thinking about this again, I wonder whether it would be enough to > > >> simply check for CONFIG_VIRTIO=y here instead. CONFIG_VIRTIO=y should be > > >> sufficient to assert that there is also at least one kind of virtio > > >> transport available, right? > > >> Otherwise this will look really horrible as soon as somebody also tries > > >> to add support for virtio-mmio here later ;-) > > > > > > Do all virtio transports have support for 9p, though? I thought it was > > > only virtio-pci and virtio-ccw... > > > > While virtio-pci and virtio-ccw seem to require separate dedicated > > devices (e.g. virtio-9p-pci and virtio-9p-ccw) for everything, > > virtio-mmio seems to work different. As far as I can see, there are no > > dedicated virtio-xxx-mmio devices in the code at all. According to > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-August/msg00009.html > > you simply have to use virtio-xxx-device here instead. And a > > virtio-9p-device is available. So theoretically, the 9p code should work > > with virtio-mmio, too, or is there a problem that I did not see yet? > > > > Anyway, we likely should not blindly enable this, so unless somebody has > > a setup to test it, we should go with your current patch instead, I think. > > qemu-system-arm supports virtio-mmio so you can use that to test it Hm, the default config for arm enables CONFIG_PCI, so machines using virtio-mmio and 9p would be broken with that patch... should we rather depend on PCI || VIRTIO_CCW? (Any arches not enabling PCI that use virtio-mmio? Or is arm the only user of virtio-mmio?)
