On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:10:11PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 08:05:02AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This introduces a general structure for group administration commands,
> > used to control device groups through their owner.
> >
> > Following patches will introduce specific commands and an interface for
> > submitting these commands to the owner.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > admin.tex | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > introduction.tex | 3 ++
> > 2 files changed, 111 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/admin.tex b/admin.tex
> > index 3dc47be..7e28b77 100644
> > --- a/admin.tex
> > +++ b/admin.tex
> > @@ -46,4 +46,112 @@ \section{Device groups}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a
> > Virtio Device / Device g
> > PCI transport (see \ref{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI
> > Bus}).
> > \end{description}
> >
> > +\subsection{Group administration commands}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a
> > Virtio Device / Device groups / Group administration commands}
> >
> > +The driver sends group administration commands to the owner device of
>
> I notice that the terminology is simply "the driver". "Owner driver"
> and "group member driver" might be clearer because there will be two
> (possibly different) drivers involved.
Hmm I don't really want to repeat owner everywhere.
I will clarify that in this section simple "driver" and "device" are
owner, "member device" and "member driver" is always called explicitly.
> > +a group to control member devices of the group.
> > +This mechanism can
> > +be used, for example, to configure a member device before it is
> > +initialized by its driver.
> > +\footnote{The term "administration" is intended to be interpreted
> > +widely to include any kind of control. See specific commands
> > +for detail.}
> > +
> > +All the group administration commands are of the following form:
> > +
> > +\begin{lstlisting}
> > +struct virtio_admin_cmd {
> > + /* Device-readable part */
> > + le16 opcode;
> > + /*
> > + * 1 - SR-IOV
> > + * 2 - 65535 reserved
> > + */
> > + le16 group_type;
> > + /* unused, reserved for future extensions */
> > + u8 reserved1[12];
> > + le64 group_member_id;
> > + u8 command_specific_data[];
> > +
> > + /* Device-writable part */
> > + le16 status;
> > + le16 status_qualifier;
> > + /* unused, reserved for future extensions */
> > + u8 reserved2[4];
> > + u8 command_specific_result[];
> > +};
> > +\end{lstlisting}
> > +
> > +For all commands, \field{opcode}, \field{group_type} and if
> > +necessary \field{group_member_id} and \field{command_specific_data} are
> > +set by the driver, and the owner device sets \field{status} and if
> > +needed \field{status_qualifier} and
> > +\field{command_specific_result}.
> > +
> > +Generally, any unused device-readable fields are set to zero by the driver
> > +and ignored by the device. Any unused device-writeable fields are set to
> > zero
> > +by the device and ignored by the driver.
> > +
> > +\field{opcode} specifies the command. The valid
> > +values for \field{opcode} can be found in the following table:
> > +
> > +\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
> > +\hline
> > +opcode & Name & Command Description \\
> > +\hline \hline
> > +0x0000 - 0x7FFF & - & Group administration commands \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x8000 - 0xFFFF & - & Reserved \\
> > +\hline
> > +\end{tabular}
>
> I thought all commands are "group administration commands" but this
> table makes it look like they are just a subset (0x0000 - 0x7FFF) of
> group administration commands, which is a paradox.
Well the rest are reserved, maybe we will have more command types who
knows. No?
> > +
> > +The \field{group_type} specifies the group type identifier.
> > +The \field{group_member_id} specifies the member identifier within the
> > group.
> > +See section \ref{sec:Introduction / Terminology / Device group}
> > +for the definition of the group type identifier and group member
> > +identifier.
> > +
> > +The following table describes possible \field{status} values;
> > +to simplify common implementations, they are intentionally
> > +matching common \hyperref[intro:errno]{Linux error names and numbers}:
> > +
> > +\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
> > +\hline
> > +Status (decimal) & Name & Description \\
> > +\hline \hline
> > +00 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_OK & successful completion \\
> > +\hline
> > +22 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_EINVAL & invalid command \\
> > +\hline
> > +other & - & group administration command error \\
> > +\hline
> > +\end{tabular}
> > +
> > +When \field{status} is VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_OK, \field{status_qialifier}
>
> s/qialifier/qualifier/
>
> > +is reserved and set to zero by the device.
> > +
> > +When \field{status} is VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_EINVAL,
> > +the following table describes possible \field{status_qialifier} values:
>
> s/qialifier/qualifier/
>
> > +\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
> > +\hline
> > +Status & Name & Description \\
> > +\hline \hline
> > +0x00 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_COMMAND & command error: no
> > additional information \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x01 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_OPCODE & unsupported or invalid
> > \field{opcode} \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x02 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_FIELD & unsupported or invalid
> > field within \field{command_specific_data} \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x03 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_GROUP & unsupported or invalid
> > \field{group_type} \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x04 & VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_MEMBER & unsupported or invalid
> > \field{group_member_id} \\
> > +\hline
> > +0x05-0xFFFF & - & reserved for future use \\
> > +\hline
> > +\end{tabular}
> > +
> > +Each command uses a different \field{command_specific_data} and
> > +\field{command_specific_result} structures and the length of
> > +\field{command_specific_data} and \field{command_specific_result}
> > +depends on these structures and is described separately or is
> > +implicit in the structure description.
>
> On more thing:
>
> Does the owner device see commands in order but may complete them in any
> order?
>
> I think this information might be useful just to make it clear that
> driver authors shouldn't make assumptions about ordering and completion
> order, e.g. pipelining a bunch of dependent commands doesn't work
> because the first command is not necessarily completed before the second
> command is started.
I think this is discussed when we discuss sending commands through vq.
in this section it's just about commands generally whatever the way
to send them to device. no?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
