Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Provide version-specific variants of virtio PCI devices

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:01 -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:43:02PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > The proposal doesn't directly address the interaction between virtio
> > > protocol version and slot type. [...]
> > 
> > It does.  See the interface names added to each device type.
> 
> Sorry, I might be blind but I'm still not seeing it... I see a bunch
> of *-pci devices and exactly zero *-pcie devices. See below.
> 
> [...]
> > The difference between the devices is not just the bus type: it
> > is a different type of device with different behavior.  Using the
> > bus type to differentiate them would be misleading.
> 
> I'm not arguing that we should use the bus type *only* to
> differentiate them, but rather that we should *also* differentiate
> them by bus type; failing to do so will mean that...
> 
> > e.g. both modern and transitional virtio devices can be plugged
> > to Conventional PCI buses, but they have different PCI IDs.
> 
> ... even people who should be very familiar with the topic by now,
> like you and me, will get it wrong from time to time, as Michael
> helpfully pointed out ;)
> 
> > I'm considering doing this in v2:
> > 
> > * Remove the -0.9 device type, because nobody seems to need it
> > * Add two device types:
> >   * virtio-1-blk-pci-non-transitional
> >   * virtio-1-blk-pci-transitional
> > 
> > This way, we:
> > * Include only the major version of the spec (so
> >   we don't require new device types for virtio 1.1, 1.2, etc),
> > * Use terms that come from the Virtio spec itself, to avoid
> >   ambiguity.
> 
> That's quite a mouthful :)
> 
> Anyway, whether a device or not is transitional should go next to
> the spec version rather than at the end: this will also help with
> consistency because we will need -device and -ccw variants of all
> these, no?
> 
> Can we assume if and when virtio 2.0 comes around it will also have
> both a pure variant and a transitional one which is compatible with
> virtio 1.0? If so, I would suggest the names should be
> 
>   virtio-1-blk-pcie               (1.x only,     PCIe slot)
>   virtio-1-transitional-blk-pci   (transitional, PCI  slot)
>   virtio-1-transitional-blk-pcie  (transitional, PCIe slot)
> 
> [...]
> > > At the same time, we should not fool ourselves into thinking it will
> > > take less than *years* before applications such as virt-manager can
> > > actually take advantage of the new devices without compromising their
> > > support for old libvirt and QEMU versions too much.
> > > 
> > > So if we're doing this to rectify some questionable design choices
> > > with the goal of having a better situation in the long run, then by
> > > all means we should go ahead; but if we think this will allow us to
> > > run RHEL 6 on q35 in the short term, then our efforts are probably
> > > misguided.
> > 
> > Good point.  You might be right about oVirt and OpenStack, but
> > I'm assuming at least some applications (maybe KubeVirt?) don't
> > care about supporting old libvirt/QEMU versions and won't have
> > that problem.
> 
> AFAIK oVirt and OpenStack have been bumping their requirements quite
> aggressively with each subsequent release, so it might not take them
> that much time to catch up; I was thinking more about applications
> like virt-manager, gnome-boxes and libguestfs, which historically
> have maintained compatibility with old libvirt/QEMU releases for the
> longest time.

OpenStack isn't that aggressive - its min is libvirt 1.3.1 and
QEMU 2.5.0

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|