On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:00 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 November 2011 16:47, Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote: > > + vmmio->hdr = (struct virtio_mmio_hdr) { > > + .magic = {'v', 'i', 'r', 't'}, > > + .version = 1, > > + .device_id = device_id - 0x1000 + 1, > > + .vendor_id = PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT_QUMRANET, > > + .queue_num_max = 256, > > + }; > > This isn't a PCI device, so does it make sense to use a PCI vendor > ID here? The kernel doesn't check the vendor ID at the moment, > but presumably the idea of the field is to allow the kernel to > work around implementation bugs/blacklist/whatever if necessary. > If that's the theory then it would make more sense for QEMU and > kvm-tool to use IDs that say "this is the QEMU implementation" > and "this is the kvm-tool implementation". > > (I picked 0x554D4551 for QEMU...) > > -- PMM
I just sheepishly filled in the only vendor ID I knew of in the virtio spec :) Hmm... If thats the plan, it should probably be a virtio thing (not virtio-mmio specific). Either way, it could also use some clarification in the spec. -- Sasha. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
