From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [RFC] kvm tools: Add support for virtio-mmio Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:56:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1321379773.3200.9.camel@lappy> References: <1321375667-17284-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gorcunov@gmail.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , asias.hejun@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, penberg@kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu To: Peter Maydell Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:00 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 November 2011 16:47, Sasha Levin wrote: > > + vmmio->hdr = (struct virtio_mmio_hdr) { > > + .magic = {'v', 'i', 'r', 't'}, > > + .version = 1, > > + .device_id = device_id - 0x1000 + 1, > > + .vendor_id = PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT_QUMRANET, > > + .queue_num_max = 256, > > + }; > > This isn't a PCI device, so does it make sense to use a PCI vendor > ID here? The kernel doesn't check the vendor ID at the moment, > but presumably the idea of the field is to allow the kernel to > work around implementation bugs/blacklist/whatever if necessary. > If that's the theory then it would make more sense for QEMU and > kvm-tool to use IDs that say "this is the QEMU implementation" > and "this is the kvm-tool implementation". > > (I picked 0x554D4551 for QEMU...) > > -- PMM I just sheepishly filled in the only vendor ID I knew of in the virtio spec :) Hmm... If thats the plan, it should probably be a virtio thing (not virtio-mmio specific). Either way, it could also use some clarification in the spec. -- Sasha.