From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZUNW-0008U4-QP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:13:38 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZUNS-0008Pa-NG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:13:38 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32943 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZUNS-0008PT-L5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:13:34 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27064)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NZUNS-0007Bz-59
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:13:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:10:26 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100125191024.GC11998@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1263230079.git.mst@redhat.com>
	<20100111171649.GB11936@redhat.com>
	<4B4CF88C.3050903@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B4CF88C.3050903@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH-RFC 01/13] virtio: export virtqueue
	structure
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:32:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 11:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> vhost needs physical addresses for
>> ring so expose that structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@redhat.com>
>>    
>
> I think accessor functions might make more sense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori

Well, take a look:

typedef struct VRing
{
    unsigned int num;
    target_phys_addr_t desc;
    target_phys_addr_t avail;
    target_phys_addr_t used;
} VRing;

struct VirtQueue
{
    VRing vring;
    target_phys_addr_t pa;
    uint16_t last_avail_idx;
    int inuse;
    uint16_t vector;
    void (*handle_output)(VirtIODevice *vdev, VirtQueue *vq);
    VirtIODevice *vdev;
    EventNotifier guest_notifier;
    EventNotifier host_notifier;
}

(Notifiers are added by patches I will shortly post).
We need at least:

    unsigned int num;
    target_phys_addr_t desc;
    target_phys_addr_t avail;
    target_phys_addr_t used;
    VRing vring;
    target_phys_addr_t pa;
    uint16_t vector;
    VirtIODevice *vdev;
    EventNotifier guest_notifier;
    EventNotifier host_notifier;

We do not need:
    uint16_t last_avail_idx;
    int inuse;
    void (*handle_output)(VirtIODevice *vdev, VirtQueue *vq);

(last_avail_idx will be needed if we ever want to
 move a running guest from kernel to userspace
 or back).
IOW, most of VirtQueue needs to be exposed.
So - do we really want accessors?

-- 
MST