On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> +static void virtio_scsi_get_config(VirtIODevice *vdev,
> + uint8_t *config)
> +{
> + VirtIOSCSIConfig *scsiconf = (VirtIOSCSIConfig *)config;
> + VirtIOSCSI *s = (VirtIOSCSI *)vdev;
> +
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->num_queues, s->conf->num_queues);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->seg_max, 128 - 2);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->max_sectors, s->conf->max_sectors);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->cmd_per_lun, s->conf->cmd_per_lun);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->event_info_size, sizeof(VirtIOSCSIEvent));
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->sense_size, s->sense_size);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->cdb_size, s->cdb_size);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->max_channel, VIRTIO_SCSI_MAX_CHANNEL);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->max_target, VIRTIO_SCSI_MAX_TARGET);
> + stl_raw(&scsiconf->max_lun, VIRTIO_SCSI_MAX_LUN);
At this early stage we still have the option of designing the device
to be little- or big-endian. I'm in favour of a fixed endianness even
though existing virtio devices tend to use guest-endian.
What do you think?
Stefan
