Hi,
>> Well, we also want to clean up the registers, so how about:
>>
>> BAR0: legacy, as is. If you access this, don't use the others.
Ok.
>> BAR1: new format virtio-pci layout. If you use this, don't use BAR0.
>> BAR2: virtio-cfg. If you use this, don't use BAR0.
Why use two bars for thi
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
>> said to Anthony, the best rules are "always" and "never", so I'd really
>> rather not have to grandfather that in.
>
> It is, but we can add a rule th
Anthony Liguori writes:
> We'll never remove legacy so we shouldn't plan on it. There are
> literally hundreds of thousands of VMs out there with the current virtio
> drivers installed in them. We'll be supporting them for a very, very
> long time :-)
You will be supporting this for qemu on x86
Rusty Russell writes:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>> Gerd Hoffmann writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
> So we could have for virtio something like this:
>
> Capabilities: [??] virtio-regs:
> legacy: BAR=0 offset=0
> virtio-pci: BAR=1 offset=1000
>
Anthony Liguori writes:
> Gerd Hoffmann writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
So we could have for virtio something like this:
Capabilities: [??] virtio-regs:
legacy: BAR=0 offset=0
virtio-pci: BAR=1 offset=1000
virtio-cfg: BAR
Gerd Hoffmann writes:
> Hi,
>
>>> So we could have for virtio something like this:
>>>
>>> Capabilities: [??] virtio-regs:
>>> legacy: BAR=0 offset=0
>>> virtio-pci: BAR=1 offset=1000
>>> virtio-cfg: BAR=1 offset=1800
>>
>> This would be
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:04:56PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
> > Rusty Russell writes:
> >
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
> >>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
> >>> virtio net
Hi,
>> So we could have for virtio something like this:
>>
>> Capabilities: [??] virtio-regs:
>> legacy: BAR=0 offset=0
>> virtio-pci: BAR=1 offset=1000
>> virtio-cfg: BAR=1 offset=1800
>
> This would be a vendor specific PCI capability so
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:14:17PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
> > for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
> > virtio net header inline with the data.
> > This can be done for free in case gu
Gerd Hoffmann writes:
> Hi,
>
>> But I think we could solve this in a different way. I think we could
>> just move the virtio configuration space to BAR1 by using a transport
>> feature bit.
>
> Why hard-code stuff?
>
> I think it makes alot of sense to have a capability simliar to msi-x
> whi
Hi,
> But I think we could solve this in a different way. I think we could
> just move the virtio configuration space to BAR1 by using a transport
> feature bit.
Why hard-code stuff?
I think it makes alot of sense to have a capability simliar to msi-x
which simply specifies bar and offset of
Rusty Russell writes:
> (Topic updated, cc's trimmed).
>
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>> Rusty Russell writes:
>>> 4) The only significant change to the spec is that we use PCI
>>>capabilities, so we can have infinite feature bits.
>>>(see
>>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/vi
12 matches
Mail list logo
