On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:54:37PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> New feature bit for in-order feature of the upcoming
> virtio 1.1. It's already supported by DPDK vhost-user
> and virtio implementations. These changes required to
> allow feature negotiation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com>
> ---
>
> I just wanted to test this new feature in DPDK but failed
> to found required patch for QEMU side. So, I implemented it.
> At least it will be helpful for someone like me, who wants
> to evaluate VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER with DPDK.
>
> hw/net/vhost_net.c | 1 +
> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 12 +++++++-----
> include/standard-headers/linux/virtio_config.h | 7 +++++++
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/net/vhost_net.c b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> index e037db6..86879c5 100644
> --- a/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> +++ b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static const int user_feature_bits[] = {
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF,
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM,
> + VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER,
>
> /* This bit implies RARP isn't sent by QEMU out of band */
> VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ANNOUNCE,
> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> index 9c1fa07..a422025 100644
> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h
> @@ -254,16 +254,18 @@ typedef struct virtio_input_conf virtio_input_conf;
> typedef struct VirtIOSCSIConf VirtIOSCSIConf;
> typedef struct VirtIORNGConf VirtIORNGConf;
>
> -#define DEFINE_VIRTIO_COMMON_FEATURES(_state, _field) \
> +#define DEFINE_VIRTIO_COMMON_FEATURES(_state, _field) \
> DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("indirect_desc", _state, _field, \
> VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC, true), \
> DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("event_idx", _state, _field, \
> VIRTIO_RING_F_EVENT_IDX, true), \
> DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("notify_on_empty", _state, _field, \
> - VIRTIO_F_NOTIFY_ON_EMPTY, true), \
> - DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("any_layout", _state, _field, \
> - VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT, true), \
> - DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("iommu_platform", _state, _field, \
> + VIRTIO_F_NOTIFY_ON_EMPTY, true), \
> + DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("any_layout", _state, _field, \
> + VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT, true), \
> + DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("in_order", _state, _field, \
> + VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER, true), \
> + DEFINE_PROP_BIT64("iommu_platform", _state, _field, \
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM, false)
Is in_order really right for all virtio devices?
> hwaddr virtio_queue_get_desc_addr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n);
> diff --git a/include/standard-headers/linux/virtio_config.h
> b/include/standard-headers/linux/virtio_config.h
> index b777069..d20398c 100644
> --- a/include/standard-headers/linux/virtio_config.h
> +++ b/include/standard-headers/linux/virtio_config.h
> @@ -71,4 +71,11 @@
> * this is for compatibility with legacy systems.
> */
> #define VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM 33
> +
> +/*
> + * Inorder feature indicates that all buffers are used by the device
> + * in the same order in which they have been made available.
> + */
> +#define VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER 35
> +
> #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_CONFIG_H */
> --
> 2.7.4
