From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-comment-return-928-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C80985E92 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:40:29 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Benditovich Message-ID: <1094048041.10853770.1574343629558.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <2082409902.10853513.1574343487818.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [virtio-comment] Question regarding packed ring Virtio 1.1 feature Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10853769_999762367.1574343629558" To: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org List-ID: ------=_Part_10853769_999762367.1574343629558 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 >From the spec it looks like the device must maintain backward compatibility= with Virt 1.0 split queue implementation and use the packed one only when = negotiated.=20 What is the rational of such limitation, especially in case of true hardwar= e device?=20 Thanks,=20 Yuri Benditovich=20 ------=_Part_10853769_999762367.1574343629558 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

From the spec it looks like the device must maintain backward comp= atibility with Virt 1.0 split queue implementation and use the packed one o= nly when negotiated.
What is the rational of such limitation, esp= ecially in case of true hardware device?

Thank= s,
Yuri Benditovich

------=_Part_10853769_999762367.1574343629558--