From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, virtio@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio: clarify feature negotiation
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:26:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220117172336-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k0eyv0az.fsf@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 04:39:32PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > We state that drivers can access config fields before FEATURES_OK. We do
> > however need them to write the features before accessing config
> > otherwise our forward compatibility won't work.
> >
> > We require devices to allow access to config space if they
> > offer a feature bit as long as that has been offered, but
> > this can't work of course since we don't know what value
> > does driver expect. What we should have said is "as long
> > as it has been acknowledged".
> >
> > While at it, clarify that drivers can write features
> > repeatedly as long as FEATURES_OK have note been
> > acknowledged.
> >
> > Note: if device denies FEATURES_OK then there's no reason
> > not to allow the driver to try with another set of features.
> > Current drivers do not need such a capability, so leave this
> > idea for another day.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > content.tex | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index 8439cc1..4f46ce9 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -298,10 +298,10 @@ \section{Device Configuration Space}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Devi
> > \end{note}
> >
> > \devicenormative{\subsection}{Device Configuration Space}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device Configuration Space}
> > -The device MUST allow reading of any device-specific configuration
> > +The device SHOULD allow reading of any device-specific configuration
>
> Why 'SHOULD'? I think the device MUST allow it for features that have
> already been written by the driver, given that is always a subset of the
> features that have been offered by the device.
>
> Maybe "The device MUST allow reading of any device-specific
> configuration field that is not depending on a feature bit, and any
> device-specific configuration field that is conditional on a feature bit
> that has been written back by the driver, before FEATURES_OK is set by
> the driver. It MAY allow reading of any other configuration field."
Like that.
> > field before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver. This includes fields which are
> > -conditional on feature bits, as long as those feature bits are offered
> > -by the device.
> > +conditional on feature bits, as long as those feature bits have
> > +been acknowledged by the driver.
>
> Better 'written back'? To me, 'acknowledged' carries overtones of
> 'negotiated', and that is not meaningful before FEATURES_OK.
OK.
In that case we should also change this:
Device Initialization / Read feature bits} Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits
understood by the OS and driver to the device.
from "write" to "write back"
> >
> > \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Device Configuration Space endian-ness}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Device Configuration Space / Legacy Interface: A Note on Configuration Space endian-ness}
> >
> > @@ -500,8 +500,13 @@ \section{Device Initialization}\label{sec:General Initialization And Device Oper
> >
> > \item\label{itm:General Initialization And Device Operation /
> > Device Initialization / Read feature bits} Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits
> > - understood by the OS and driver to the device. During this step the
> > - driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> > + understood by the OS and driver to the device. During this
> > + step, after writing the subset of feature bits to the device the
> > + driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific
> > + configuration fields to validate that it can support the device
> > + before accepting it. The driver MAY then repeatedly modify the
> > + subset as appropriate, write the new subset and repeat the
> > + validation, any number of times.
> >
> > \item\label{itm:General Initialization And Device Operation / Device Initialization / Set FEATURES-OK} Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept
> > new feature bits after this step.
> > @@ -3296,6 +3301,12 @@ \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device
> > \field{duplex} fields as long as VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP is set in
> > the \field{status}.
> >
> > +If the device offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the device SHOULD allow
> > +reading of \field{mtu} before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver
> > +even if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has not been acknowledged by the driver.
> > +This is to support existing drivers which access this field
> > +before acknowledging features.
>
> Maybe better 'written back', see my comment above.
>
> Also note this in the patch description?
thanks
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-17 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-14 22:50 [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio: clarify feature negotiation Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-17 15:39 ` Cornelia Huck
2022-01-17 22:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2022-01-19 12:23 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-19 16:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-19 17:50 ` [virtio] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-19 23:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-20 12:39 ` [virtio-comment] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-20 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-20 15:24 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-19 12:23 ` [virtio-comment] Re: [virtio] " Halil Pasic
2022-01-19 16:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-20 13:05 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-20 16:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-21 2:38 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-21 16:05 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-24 16:40 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-24 21:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-25 14:57 ` [virtio] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-25 18:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-26 9:27 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2022-04-07 14:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2022-04-07 14:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-01-26 15:10 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-25 15:22 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-26 14:14 ` Halil Pasic
2022-01-21 3:17 ` Halil Pasic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220117172336-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=virtio@lists.oasis-open.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox