On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 04:15:19PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > > On 25-09-2025 04:05 pm, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > Function pointers are there for multiple transports to implement their own > > > implementation. > > My understanding is that you want to use flow control admin commands > > in virtio net, without making it depend on virtio pci. > No flow control in vnet. > > This why the callbacks are here. Is that right? > > No. callbacks are there so that transport agnostic layer can invoke it, > which is drivers/virtio/virtio.c. > > And transport specific code stays in transport layer, which is presently > following config_ops design. > > > > > That is fair enough, but it looks like every new command then > > needs a lot of boilerplate code with a callback a wrapper and > > a transport implementation. > > Not really. I dont see any callbacks or wrapper in current proposed patches. > > All it has is transport specific implementation of admin commands. > > > > > > > Why not just put all this code in virtio core? It looks like the > > transport just needs to expose an API to find the admin vq. > > Can you please be specific of which line in the current code can be moved to > virtio core? > > When the spec was drafted, _one_ was thinking of admin command transport > over non admin vq also. > > So current implementation of letting transport decide on how to transport a > command seems right to me. > > But sure, if you can pin point the lines of code that can be shifted to > generic layer, that would be good.
I imagine a get_admin_vq operation in config_ops. The rest of the code seems to be transport independent and could be part of the core. WDYT? -- MST
