On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote: > >
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 20 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote: > >> > >>
> Add new registers to the PCI common configuration structure. > >> > > >>
> These registers will be used for querying the indices of the admin > >>
> virtqueues of the owner device. To configure, reset or enable the admin > >>
> virtqueues, the driver should follow existing queue configuration/setup > >>
> sequence. > >> > > >>
> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <> > >>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <> > >> > --- > >>
> content.tex
34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) > >> > >> (...) > >> > >> > @@ -1112,6 +1129,14 @@ subsubsection{Common configuration structure layout}label{sec:Virtio Transport > >>
> were used before the queue reset. > >> > (see
ef{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues / Virtqueue Reset}). > >> >
> >> > +If VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ has been negotiated, and if the driver > >> > +configures any administration virtqueues, the driver MUST > >> > +configure the administration virtqueues using the index > >> > +in the range field{admin_queue_index} to > >> > +field{admin_queue_index} + field{admin_queue_num} inclusive. > >> > +The driver MAY configure less administration virtqueues than > >> > +supported by the device. > >> > >> Is the driver allowed to pick any admin queue from within the range, > >> e.g. queues 2 and 5, and leave the rest? > > >
> I was split on this. In the end I don't see why not. >
> Do you feel we need to document this? >
> It should work fine, I guess; probably no need to spell it out
> explicitly. > > > > >> > + > >>
> subsubsection{Notification structure layout}label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Layout / Notification capability} > >> >
> >>
> The notification location is found using the VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_NOTIFY_CFG > >> > @@ -6986,6 +7011,15 @@ chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits} > >>
>
See
ef{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues / Virtqueue Reset}. > >> >
> >>
>
item[VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ (41)] This feature indicates that an administration virtqueue is supported. > >> > + At the moment this feature is only supported for devices using > >> > +
ef{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI > >> > + Bus}~
ameref{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus} > >> > + as the transport and is reserved for future use for > >> > + devices using other transports (see > >> > +
ef{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature Bits} > >> > + and > >> > +
ef{devicenormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature Bits} for > >> > + handling features reserved for future use. > >> >
> >>
> end{description} > >> >
> >> > >> We don't say for any other feature which transports support it; do we > >> really need to state it here explicitly if we have the rules for > >> reserved feature bits in place? It simply will be neither offered nor > >> accepted if the device and driver use an unsupported transport. > > >
> It's just easy for someone to add code for feature in transport >
> agnostic part and then it will be negotiated mistakenly when >
> we add it for a new transport. >
> Potential for such a bug is what worries me and this is why I add >
> this in so many places. Harmless no? >
> By this reasoning, we probably should also add a comment for
> NOTIFICATION_DATA and RING_RESET? (On top, of course.) Yes I think we should.
--
MST
