From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: virtio-pci new configuration proposal Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:51:38 +1030 Message-ID: <87vcqurk25.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20111104135113.GA24452@redhat.com> <1320414804.3334.13.camel@lappy> <20111104142338.GB24452@redhat.com> <1320418385.3334.25.camel@lappy> <20111106073007.GA7146@redhat.com> <1320611097.3299.10.camel@lappy> <20111106213849.GA14292@redhat.com> <871utktsuw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111107211413.GA11577@redhat.com> <87aa87sd4y.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111108063249.GB11577@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111108063249.GB11577@redhat.com> 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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Anthony Liguori , virtualization , Sasha Levin , kvm , linux-kernel List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:32:50 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:23:33AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Even so, should we just use the PCI cap list, and have each > > cap entry just contain a BIR & offset? > > > > Thanks, > > Rusty. > > And size :) > I say, Rusty, did you see my patch? That's what it's doing, > I also addressed the issue that with KVM on x86, PIO is faster > than MMIO so we need to use it for notifications/isr. Faster? Really? Why? Were the ppc guys right that's it's obsolescent? Because PIO is going to be ugly AFAICT for every non-x86 platform. Cheers, Rusty.