From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-dev-return-4096-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [66.179.20.138]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C0A58191C7 for ; Fri, 18 May 2018 02:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 17:06:53 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie Message-ID: <20180518090653.GA9178@debian> References: <20180518073855.21070-1-tiwei.bie@intel.com> <20180518101438.6748a49d.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180518084309.GA3839@debian> <20180518110101.2588147f.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180518110101.2588147f.cohuck@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] content: support SR-IOV To: Cornelia Huck Cc: mst@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, dan.daly@intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, mark.d.rustad@intel.com, cunming.liang@intel.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com List-ID: On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:01:01AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 16:43:09 +0800 > Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 May 2018 15:38:55 +0800 > > > Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > > > > > Reserve a feature bit for virtio devices which support SR-IOV. > > > > > > Reserving a feature bit for this makes sense, but... > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie > > > > --- > > > > More details can be found from this thread: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10285541/ > > > > > > > > content.tex | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex > > > > index 7a92cb1..62214fa 100644 > > > > --- a/content.tex > > > > +++ b/content.tex > > > > @@ -95,10 +95,10 @@ Feature bits are allocated as follows: > > > > \begin{description} > > > > \item[0 to 23] Feature bits for the specific device type > > > > > > > > -\item[24 to 33] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue and > > > > +\item[24 to 36] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue and > > > > feature negotiation mechanisms > > > > > > > > -\item[34 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions. > > > > +\item[37 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions. > > > > \end{description} > > > > > > > > \begin{note} > > > > @@ -5348,6 +5348,8 @@ Descriptors} and \ref{sec:Packed Virtqueues / Indirect Flag: Scatter-Gather Supp > > > > \item[VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER(35)] This feature indicates > > > > that all buffers are used by the device in the same > > > > order in which they have been made available. > > > > + \item[VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV(36)] This feature indicates that > > > > + the device supports Single Root I/O Virtualization. > > > > > > ...shouldn't this mention 'PCI' somewhere? This feature does not make > > > sense on any transport but PCI. > > > > Yeah. When Michael suggested this feature, he also said: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10285541/ > > """ > > It seems PCI specific so non pci transports would disable the feature > > for now. > > """ > > > > Based on the current description, transports other than > > PCI would have this feature bit disabled. > > > > Do you think there is any possibility that other transports > > may reuse this feature bit to do something similar? > > I don't know about mmio (and I'm not sure how actively it is > developed), but ccw is so different that I don't see how it could match > to anything there. Got it. Thanks! > > > > > Or do you think we should make this feature bit PCI specific > > and don't leave any chance for other transports to reuse > > it, e.g. by naming it as VIRTIO_F_PCI_SR_IOV? > > > > Or do you think it's OK to still name it as VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV, > > but add the word 'PCI' when talking about the capability, > > e.g.: > > > > A device SHOULD offer VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV if it presents a PCI > > SR-IOV capability structure. A device MAY fail to operate > > further if VIRTIO_F_SR_IOV is not accepted. > > Adding 'PCI' to the description is probably best, I think. Got it. I'll do it in the next version. Thanks! Best regards, Tiwei Bie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org