Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Add virtio Admin virtqueue

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 03:35:58PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:56 PM
> 
> > > I might have been a bit too vague about what I had been thinking
> > > about. Let's do a sketch (intentionally without concrete sizes):
> > >
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | command                                               |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | target type (0 - self, 1 - dev id, 2 - group id, ...  |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | dev id                                                |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | group id                                              |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | command-specific data                                 |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | response part                                         |
> > > +-------------------------------------------------------+
> > >
> > > 'dev id' would be valid for 'target type' == 1, 'group id' would be
> > > valid for 'target type' == 2. Alternatively, 'dev id' and 'group id'
> > > could be a single 'target id' field; if there's nothing better to use,
> > > it can simply contain a uuid.
> > 
> > I am not sure why do we have both dev id and group id.
> > They are never used together right?
> > Maybe just have an id length field if we can't agree on how much space to
> > reserve.
> This is what I propose in a previous email.
> A device id can be duplicate in different groups.
> So to build hierarchy group id will be desired.
> 
> So id[] array can contain nested one or multiple fields.

I guess nesting is for when there's like an SF within a VF?

-- 
MST