On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 07:52:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Rusty Russell <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Anthony Liguori <[email protected]> writes:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> + case offsetof(struct virtio_pci_common_cfg, device_feature_select):
> >>> + return proxy->device_feature_select;
> >>
> >> Oh dear no... Please use defines like the rest of QEMU.
> >
> > It is pretty ugly.
>
> I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder here...
>
> Pretty much every device we have has a switch statement like this.
> Consistency wins when it comes to qualitative arguments like this.
>
> > Yet the structure definitions are descriptive, capturing layout, size
> > and endianness in natural a format readable by any C programmer.
>
> >From an API design point of view, here are the problems I see:
>
> 1) C makes no guarantees about structure layout beyond the first
> member. Yes, if it's naturally aligned or has a packed attribute,
> GCC does the right thing. But this isn't kernel land anymore,
> portability matters and there are more compilers than GCC.
You expect a compiler to pad this structure:
struct foo {
uint8_t a;
uint8_t b;
uint16_t c;
uint32_t d;
};
I'm guessing any compiler that decides to waste memory in this way
will quickly get dropped by users and then we won't worry
about building QEMU with it.
> 2) If we every introduce anything like latching, this doesn't work out
> so well anymore because it's hard to express in a single C structure
> the register layout at that point. Perhaps a union could be used but
> padding may make it a bit challenging.
Then linux won't use it either.
> 3) It suspect it's harder to review because a subtle change could more
> easily have broad impact. If someone changed the type of a field
> from u32 to u16, it changes the offset of every other field. That's
> not terribly obvious in the patch itself unless you understand how
> the structure is used elsewhere.
>
> This may not be a problem for virtio because we all understand that
> the structures are part of an ABI, but if we used this pattern more
> in QEMU, it would be a lot less obvious.
So let's not use it more in QEMU.
> > So AFAICT the question is, do we put the required
> >
> > #define VIRTIO_PCI_CFG_FEATURE_SEL \
> > (offsetof(struct virtio_pci_common_cfg, device_feature_select))
> >
> > etc. in the kernel headers or qemu?
>
> I'm pretty sure we would end up just having our own integer defines. We
> carry our own virtio headers today because we can't easily import the
> kernel headers.
Yes we can easily import them.
And at least we copy headers verbatim.
> >> Haven't looked at the proposed new ring layout yet.
> >
> > No change, but there's an open question on whether we should nail it to
> > little endian (or define the endian by the transport).
> >
> > Of course, I can't rule out that the 1.0 standard *may* decide to frob
> > the ring layout somehow,
>
> Well, given that virtio is widely deployed today, I would think the 1.0
> standard should strictly reflect what's deployed today, no?
> Any new config layout would be 2.0 material, right?
Not as it's currently planned. Devices can choose
to support a legacy layout in addition to the new one,
and if you look at the patch you will see that that
is exactly what it does.
> Re: the new config layout, I don't think we would want to use it for
> anything but new devices. Forcing a guest driver change
There's no forcing.
If you look at the patches closely, you will see that
we still support the old layout on BAR0.
> is a really big
> deal and I see no reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason
> to.
There are many a compelling reasons, and they are well known
limitations of virtio PCI:
- PCI spec compliance (madates device operation with IO memory disabled).
- support 64 bit addressing
- add more than 32 feature bits.
- individually disable queues.
- sanely support cross-endian systems.
- support very small (<1 PAGE) for virtio rings.
- support a separate page for each vq kick.
- make each device place config at flexible offset.
Addressing any one of these would cause us to add a substantially new
way to operate virtio devices.
And since it's a guest change anyway, it seemed like a
good time to do the new layout and fix everything in one go.
And they are needed like yesterday.
> So we're stuck with the 1.0 config layout for a very long time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
Absolutely. This patch let us support both which will allow for
a gradual transition over the next 10 years or so.
> > reason. I suggest that's 2.0 material...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rusty.
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
