virtio — archive

[Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 05:42:05PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 5/17/2022 1:12 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Sun, May 15 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 01:58:22AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > This new structure will be used for adding new miscellaneous registers > > > > for a virtio device configuration layout. > > > > > > > > For now, only admin_queue_index register is added. Admin virtqueue index > > > > does not depend on the device type. Hence, add a PCI capability to read > > > > the admin virtqueue index. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> > > > > > > I guess we discussed this but I forgot. Why do we have this new > > > structure as opposed to just adding the value at the end of config > > > structure? I was kind of hoping that the structure can be > > > reused for CCW/MMIO and then we can add more use-cases with > > > new transport and device independent structures. > > > > > > If we keep it transport specific I don't really understand why > > > is it useful ... > > Nod, just define a common misc_configuration struct and have the > > individual transports access it in the way it works best for them. > > can we agree on it ? > > I think we got 3 acks on this in the past, are we opening this topic again ? Are you going to answer the question though? I think the assumption was it will be reused for CCW/MMIO but now we see it's useless for that... -- MST