On 2018年06月14日 08:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 09:19:44AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 03:39:02PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:26PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
There will be hardware virtio devices in the future, which
require drivers to use the barriers suitable for I/O devices,
compared with software virtio devices which just require
drivers to use the barriers suitable for CPU cores.

To fix the ordering issue for hardware virtio devices, add
a new feature: VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER. When negotiated, driver
will use the barriers suitable for I/O devices.

Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie<tiwei....@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@redhat.com>
When you are ready, please open a github issue, then
send Fixes: tag in a response to this mail, asking
to start voting.
Got it! Thank you very much!

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie
I have a question: an upstream discussion recently
touched on the subject of need to use bounce buffers
in special memory, flush cache, or do other tricks
for DMA.

Do we want to extend this flag to cover that behaviour
as well? If yes should we rename it and tweak the
definition? Or should do something else?

Looks not, will device behave differently if we have it?

So it looks to me it was more a platform or software stuffs that could be handled by driver itself.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org

Reply via email to