On 17.10.23 07:36, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 16-10-23, 12:40, Alex Bennée wrote:
Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> writes:
On 16-10-23, 11:45, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:32, Hanna Czenczek <hre...@redhat.com> wrote:
diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
index 9f9ddf878d..1d4121431b 100644
--- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
+++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
@@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ enum VhostUserProtocolFeature {
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_INBAND_NOTIFICATIONS = 14,
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_CONFIGURE_MEM_SLOTS = 15,
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_STATUS = 16,
- VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SHARED_OBJECT = 17,
+ /* Feature 17 reserved for VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_XEN_MMAP. */
+ VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SHARED_OBJECT = 18,
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MAX
};
May I ask, why not define VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_XEN_MMAP as well instead of
a comment mention?
Perhaps because we will never use it from Qemu code ?
Vikram's work on enabling xenpvh support will mean enabling grant
support and while I suspect most VirtIO backends will be within QEMU
itself if it ever want to off-load something to a vhost-user backend it
will need to ensure this flag is set.
Hanna,
It would be good to define it then in the current commit itself.
Not that I’m really opposed to that, but I don’t see the problem with
just doing that in the same work that makes qemu actually use this flag,
exactly because it’s just a -1/+1 change.
I can send a v2, but should I do the same for libvhost-user and define
the flag there? Do I have to add a patch to do the same for F_STATUS,
which so far only got a placeholder comment?
Hanna
