On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:16:41AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:> > Based on patch by Cornelia Huck. > > > > Note: for consistency, and to avoid sparse errors, > > convert all fields, even those no longer in use > > for virtio v1.0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > ... > > > > -static unsigned int features[] = { > > +static unsigned int features_legacy[] = { > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI, > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE, > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > +} > > +; > > +static unsigned int features[] = { > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > + VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, > > We can fit this into less lines, like done for features_legacy.Wrt packing code more tightly, I did it like this to make it easier to compare the arrays. Each flag is on the same line in original and new array.> I was asking myself if we could do the conversion of the statical values > somehow upfront, to reduce the patch size and avoid cpu_to_virtio.* at those > places. > > Otherwise looks good to me. >
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:16:41AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > Based on patch by Cornelia Huck. > > > > > > Note: for consistency, and to avoid sparse errors, > > > convert all fields, even those no longer in use > > > for virtio v1.0. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > ... > > > > > > -static unsigned int features[] = { > > > +static unsigned int features_legacy[] = { > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI, > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE, > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > > +} > > > +; > > > +static unsigned int features[] = { > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > > + VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, > > > > We can fit this into less lines, like done for features_legacy. > > Wrt packing code more tightly, I did it like this to > make it easier to compare the arrays. > Each flag is on the same line in original and new array.This just looks inconsistent to me. 1. features_legacy is tightly packed 2. half of features is tightly packed So either all tightly packed or put every item on a single line. At least that's what I would do :)> > > I was asking myself if we could do the conversion of the statical values > > somehow upfront, to reduce the patch size and avoid cpu_to_virtio.* at those > > places. > > > > Otherwise looks good to me. > > >
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:01:36 +0100 David Hildenbrand <dahi at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:16:41AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > Based on patch by Cornelia Huck. > > > > > > > > Note: for consistency, and to avoid sparse errors, > > > > convert all fields, even those no longer in use > > > > for virtio v1.0. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > > ... > > > > > > > > -static unsigned int features[] = { > > > > +static unsigned int features_legacy[] = { > > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI, > > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE, > > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > > > +} > > > > +; > > > > +static unsigned int features[] = { > > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SIZE_MAX, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY, > > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE, > > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY, > > > > + VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ, > > > > + VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, > > > > > > We can fit this into less lines, like done for features_legacy. > > > > Wrt packing code more tightly, I did it like this to > > make it easier to compare the arrays. > > Each flag is on the same line in original and new array. > > This just looks inconsistent to me. > > 1. features_legacy is tightly packed > 2. half of features is tightly packed > > So either all tightly packed or put every item on a single line. At least > that's what I would do :)I agree with the reasoning that this makes it easy to compare legacy vs. standard at a glance, so I vote for keeping it this way.