On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:47:14AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:55:34PM +0300, Anton Kuchin wrote:
> > Make virtio-fs take into account server capabilities.
> >
> > Just returning requested features assumes they all of then are implemented
> > by server and results in setting unsupported configuration if some of them
> > are absent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anton Kuchin <antonkuc...@yandex-team.ru>
> > ---
> > hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> > index ac4fc34b36..6cf983ba0e 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user-fs.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,14 @@
> > #include "monitor/monitor.h"
> > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
> >
> > +static const int user_feature_bits[] = {
> > + VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1,
> > + VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC,
> > + VIRTIO_RING_F_EVENT_IDX,
> > + VIRTIO_F_NOTIFY_ON_EMPTY,
> > + VHOST_INVALID_FEATURE_BIT
> > +};
>
> Please add:
>
> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM
Hi Stefan,
What about
VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT
I see this one is currently set in requested_features. IIUC, qemu will
assume that device supports VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT if we don't reset it.
And I see two more flags.
VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM
VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV
Should this be part of user_feature_bits[] too?
Thanks
Vivek
>
> QEMU's virtiofsd does not enable either of these for now, but it's worth
> allowing the vhost-user device backend to participate in negotiation so
> that this can change in the future (or alternative virtiofsd
> implementations can support these features).
> _______________________________________________
> Virtio-fs mailing list
> virtio...@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
