On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 04:32:07PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Halil Pasic <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:29 PM
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 23:24:22 +0800
> > Heng Qi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > +struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal_vq {
> > > + le16 vqn;
> > > + le16 reserved;
> > > + struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal coal; };
> > > +
> > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL 6
> > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_TX_SET 0
> > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_RX_SET 1
> > > + #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_SET 2 #define
> > > + VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_GET 3
> > > \end{lstlisting}
> > >
> > > Coalescing parameters:
> > > \begin{itemize}
> > > +\item \field{vqn}: The virtqueue number of an enabled transmit or receive
> > virtqueue.
> >
> > Just to be on the safe side: VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA has been
> > negotiated, and queue_select != queue_notify_data, is vqn supposed to
> > contain
> > queue_notify_data or the number/index that is used for queue_select (I'm
> > talking about the PCI transport case)?
> Vqn has zero relation to notification config data feature and featue bit.
> It is the real vqn enabled via queue_select.
>
> Once the vqn is renamed to vq_notify_id, we won't have this confusion anymore.
vqn here is the index. queue_select is also the index.
Inside notifications-le.c we have:
le32 {
vqn : 16;
next_off : 15;
next_wrap : 1;
};
vqn here is queue_notify_data.
--
MST
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
