> I don't see the connection. virtio would often pass through lifetime
> info from the host. If other devices gain more info then it will make
> sense to add that to virtio, too.
> Depends. If we expect more types, then I think we
> can solve this by passing an array of values.
Good idea!
We could pass something like virtio_blk_lifetime_ioctl struct to userspace:
enum blk_lifetime_type {
VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_PRE_EOL_TYPE_A_B = 1,
};
struct virtio_blk_lifetime_element {
void *data;
enum blk_lifetime_type;
};
struct virtio_blk_lifetime_ioctl {
struct virtio_blk_lifetime_element elements[];
u32 elements_num;
};
If just VIRTIO_BLK_F_LIFETIME is negotiated, the array size is 1, and
the element type is VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_PRE_EOL_TYPE_A_B, so the user
will know that this is a virtio_blk_lifetime struct.
This seems general enough to handle future additions and to handle out
of order types (if for example VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME is not negotiated
and VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_FUTURE is).
The only downside I can think of is if we add new fields to the struct
virtio_blk_lifetime struct, instead of creating a new, dedicated
struct in the spec.
For example:
struct virtio_blk_lifetime {
le16 pre_eol_info;
le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_a;
le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_b;
le16 device_lifetime_est_typ_c; //only if
VIRTIO_BLK_LIFETIME_FUTURE is negotiated
};
In this case, we may need to split it into 2 different structs, and
pass it as 2 elements to userspace.
What do you think?
Should I go ahead and create a new version?
Alvaro
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
