Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] virtio_pci: struct virtio_pci_common_cfg add queue_notify_data

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:17 AM Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 16:06:15 +0800, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:07 PM Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:41:06 +0800, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 在 2022/1/26 下午3:35, Xuan Zhuo 写道:
> > > > > Add queue_notify_data in struct virtio_pci_common_cfg, which comes from
> > > > > here https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/89
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I want to add queue_reset after it, I submitted this patch first.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   include/uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h | 1 +
> > > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h
> > > > > index 3a86f36d7e3d..492c89f56c6a 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_pci.h
> > > > > @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ struct virtio_pci_common_cfg {
> > > > >     __le32 queue_avail_hi;          /* read-write */
> > > > >     __le32 queue_used_lo;           /* read-write */
> > > > >     __le32 queue_used_hi;           /* read-write */
> > > > > +   __le16 queue_notify_data;       /* read-write */
> > > > >   };
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So I had the same concern as previous version.
> > > >
> > > > This breaks uABI where program may try to use sizeof(struct
> > > > virtio_pci_common_cfg).
> > > >
> > > > We probably need a container structure here.
> > >
> > > I see, I plan to add a struct like this, do you think it's appropriate?
> > >
> > > struct virtio_pci_common_cfg_v1 {
> > >         struct virtio_pci_common_cfg cfg;
> > >         __le16 queue_notify_data;       /* read-write */
> > > }
> >
> > Something like this but we probably need a better name.
>
>
> how about this?
>
>         /* Ext Fields in VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_COMMON_CFG: */
>         struct virtio_pci_common_cfg_ext {
>                 struct virtio_pci_common_cfg cfg;
>
>                 __le16 queue_notify_data;       /* read-write */
>
>                 __le16 reserved0;
>                 __le16 reserved1;
>                 __le16 reserved2;
>                 __le16 reserved3;
>                 __le16 reserved4;
>                 __le16 reserved5;
>                 __le16 reserved6;
>                 __le16 reserved7;
>                 __le16 reserved8;
>                 __le16 reserved9;
>                 __le16 reserved10;
>                 __le16 reserved11;
>                 __le16 reserved12;
>                 __le16 reserved13;
>                 __le16 reserved14;
>         };

I still think the container without padding is better. Otherwise
userspace needs to use offset_of() trick instead of sizeof().

Thanks

>
> Thanks
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > THanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   /* Fields in VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_PCI_CFG: */
> > > >
> > >
> >
>