From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751319Ab1KFH3G (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Nov 2011 02:29:06 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22899 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855Ab1KFH3E (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Nov 2011 02:29:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:30:07 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Sasha Levin Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel , kvm , virtualization , Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: virtio-pci new configuration proposal Message-ID: <20111106073007.GA7146@redhat.com> References: <1320259767.22582.2.camel@lappy> <8762j2t19l.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1320309203.29407.1.camel@lappy> <87lirwrzlg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111104114033.GA21308@redhat.com> <1320409939.3334.6.camel@lappy> <20111104135113.GA24452@redhat.com> <1320414804.3334.13.camel@lappy> <20111104142338.GB24452@redhat.com> <1320418385.3334.25.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1320418385.3334.25.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > As you said, the PCI cap list was introduced both to save space (which > > > > > is not the motivation here), and because it's a very efficient > > > > > > > > It's actually pretty inefficient - there's an overhead of 3 bytes for > > > > each vendor specific option. > > > > > > It's efficient because while you pay a small price for each optional > > > option it also means that that option is optional and won't clutter the > > > config space if it's not really in use. > > > > I guess my assumption is that most options will be in use, > > not discarded dead-ends. > > I don't know about that. 64 bit features would be pretty rare for now - > and I don't think that setting the alignment will be also enabled by > default. Setting the alignment might not be *used* by default but I think it must be enabled by default to allow bios access. > I think that we're looking at it differently because I assume that any > feature we add at this point would be optional and used only in specific > scenarios, while you think that everything added will be used most of > the time. Options must often be present even if not used. For example, as device has no way to know whether a guest will want to program alignment, it has to make that option available. -- MST