From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Covington Subject: Re: what should a virtio-mmio transport without a backend look like? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:01:19 -0400 Message-ID: <51C494EF.4060509@codeaurora.org> References: <1371726501.3231.22.camel@hornet> <51C2FC5B.7080406@codeaurora.org> <51C4792F.6010709@codeaurora.org> <1371833230.3155.19.camel@hornet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Peter Maydell Cc: =?UTF-8?B?S09OUkFEIEZyw6lkw6lyaWM=?= , Pawel Moll , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi Peter, On 06/21/2013 01:01 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 21 June 2013 17:47, Pawel Moll wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:41 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> As it happens, if you use the command line to specify >>> a virtio device it doesn't make the same complaint about >>> bad magic number as if you specify it via dtb, but that >>> should probably be fixed in the kernel :-) >> >> I don't really see how this would be possible - the "complaining code" >> is just a normal platform device probe function. > > Sorry, you're correct and I misremembered. I just retested > with specifying via command line and it behaves the same > way as via dtb. I was going to say something. I see that complaint all the time. Anyhow, I just did a quick experiment with 0-size block devices, and they seem to work for me, although trying to mount the device yields the confusing message, "mount: mounting /dev/vda on mount failed: Invalid argument". Regards, Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation.