From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vadim Rozenfeld Subject: Re: lspci says: "SCSI storage controller: Qumranet, Inc. Virtio block device". Is it really? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:48:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4ADC6E18.4080505@redhat.com> References: <4ADC582E.305@wpkg.org> <68676e00910190609t5dee17e9y9f26b63b7a077de3@mail.gmail.com> <4ADC6A25.5080503@wpkg.org> <68676e00910190636r693950dfk6abccd4c8ed3ad63@mail.gmail.com> <4ADC6CDC.3000409@wpkg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Luca Tettamanti , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Chmielewski Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65044 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755372AbZJSNsK (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:48:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4ADC6CDC.3000409@wpkg.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/19/2009 03:42 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > Luca Tettamanti wrote: > >>> So why was "SCSI storage controller" any better than "IDE interface" or >>> "SATA controller" for virtio block device, if it does not talk SCSI >>> protocol >>> (other than "SCSI storage controller" being the first on the list of >>> subclasses)? >> >> Because both ATA and SATA classes have a generic driver that would try >> to bind to that controller (and the whole point of virtio block device >> is to avoid emulating a ATA/SATA controller). >> >>> Doesn't "80 Mass storage controller" ("0x80 0x00 Other mass >>> storage >>> controller") fit better for virtio block device? >> >> Maybe. I guess that are compatibility problem with "other" operating >> systems. > > Thanks for clarifications. > > It makes sense in that case - I don't have any more questions ;) > > we need it for windows viostor driver to be WHQL'ed