From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] Assign the correct pci id range to virtio_pci Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:49:16 +0300 Message-ID: <49F4584C.6000504@redhat.com> References: <1240571860-13832-1-git-send-email-pktoss@gmail.com> <49F4392C.8010507@redhat.com> <1295ed070904260544m25d781b1ueaeb3ba058818491@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , Anthony Liguori To: Pantelis Koukousoulas Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48794 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753702AbZDZMt1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:49:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1295ed070904260544m25d781b1ueaeb3ba058818491@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pantelis Koukousoulas wrote: >> Please copy the virtio maintainer (Rusty Russell ) on >> virtio guest patches. >> > > Well, for now the issue is whether my understanding of qemu/pci-ids.txt and the > comment in virtio_pci.c that both say that the full 0x1000 - 0x10ff range of PCI > device IDs is donated for virtio_pci devices is correct. > 0x1000-0x10ff is correct. I don't know where the 0x103f came from. Rusty? > If that is true, virtio_pci only claiming 0x1000 - 0x103f doesn't make > much sense to me > and looks more like a typo, because there is no explicit justification > (perhaps in a comment) either. > (3f does not even show up in pci-ids.txt). > > The ranges mentioned there are: > > 1000 -> 10ef (one needs to contact Gerd to reserve an unallocated ID > in that range) > and > 10f0 -> 10ff (available for experimental devices, a random ID in that > range can be > used during private development without asking > anyone as long as > you are not shipping anything using it) > > the range ef -> f0 (exclusive) is reserved. > > From the above, my understanding is that virtio_pci should definitely > claim at least > 00 -> ef and most likely it should claim f0->ff too. The only reason > not to claim some > IDs is to allow someone to have virtio PCI devices that do *not* use > the virtio_pci > infrastructure but why would we want that? > We wouldn't. If it isn't a virtio-pci device, it should leech an ID from someone else. > The reason I asked here (I guess qemu-devel would be just as relevant or more, > but it has more traffic) is because Anthony is the author of > virtio_pci.c (at least it looks like it) > Added cc. > so hopefully he knows if that 3f was a typo or not and Gerd is responsible for > the PCI ID namespace management so he knows if pci-ids.txt is correct or not. > > Once this issue is clarified I 'm happy to resend the same or an > improved version > of the patch as appropriate. > -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function