Re: [PATCH v1] s390/virtio_ccw: don't allocate/assign airqs for non-existing queues

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 07.04.25 11:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.04.25 10:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:54:00AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 07.04.25 10:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:44:21AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoever adds new feat_X *must be aware* about all previous features,
>>>>>>> otherwise we'd be reusing feature bits and everything falls to pieces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The knowledge is supposed be limited to which feature bit to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we also have to know which virtqueue bits can be used, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what are virtqueue bits? vq number?
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry.
>>
>> I got confused myself, it's vq index actually now, we made the spec
>> consistent with that terminology. used to be number/index
>> interchangeably.
>>
>>> Assume cross-vm as an example. It would make use of virtqueue indexes 5+6
>>> with their VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_WS_REPORTING.
>>
>>
>> crossvm guys really should have reserved the feature bit even if they
>> did not bother specifying it. Let's reserve it now at least?
> 
> Along with the virtqueue indices, right?
> 
> Note that there was
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-05/msg02503.html
> 
> and
> 
> https://groups.oasis-open.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?GroupId=3973&MessageKey=afb07613-f56c-4d40-8981-2fad1c723998&CommunityKey=2f26be99-3aa1-48f6-93a5-018dce262226&hlmlt=VT
> 
> But it only was RFC, and as the QEMU implementation didn't materialize,
> nobody seemed to care ...

Heh, but that one said:

+\item[ VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_WS_REPORTING(6) ] The device has support for
Working Set

Which does not seem to reflect reality ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb