From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 05:59:51 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] RE: [PATCH v5 2/7] Introduce admin command set Message-ID: <20220620055014-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220426225824.5918-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220426225824.5918-3-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220515111056-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220517074130-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: Parav Pandit Cc: Max Gurtovoy , "jasowang@redhat.com" , "virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" , "cohuck@redhat.com" , "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , Oren Duer , Shahaf Shuler , "aadam@redhat.com" , "virtio@lists.oasis-open.org" List-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 08:39:24PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > And as I said, you will need much more spec work to reach the level to which > > features are specified - and note we are not yet happy with how features are > Can you be specific of the work that you are expecting in this v5 version? I proposed getting rid of attrs_mask/device_admin_caps and instead specify that e.g. feature bits 64 to 95 are reserved for management purposes. Maybe just add a 32 bit register, or maybe "extended features" with a selector and length like mmio and ccw already do, up to you. I think Cornelia likes this suggestion too. This would replace functionality of the VIRTIO_ADMIN_DEVICE_CAPS_IDENTIFY/VIRTIO_ADMIN_DEVICE_CAPS_ACCEPT commands and have the advantage of being generally well specified and understood. Is this acceptable? Or is there a reason the new commands are preferable? -- MST