Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20 matches for "has_variable_vring_align".
2014 Dec 03
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
> * silently failing to migrate this state)
Do we have to touch this now?
It's only used by MMIO, right?
> @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
>
> vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
Don't we need to update rings?
> }
>
> void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
> if...
2014 Dec 03
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
> * silently failing to migrate this state)
Do we have to touch this now?
It's only used by MMIO, right?
> @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
>
> vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
Don't we need to update rings?
> }
>
> void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
> if...
2014 Dec 03
1
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...t; It's only used by MMIO, right?
>
> I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here.
I'd say let's not touch mmio ATM.
> >
> >
> > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
> > >
> > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
> >
> > Don't we need to update rings?
>
> See above, I'll call update_rings in there.
>
> >
> > > }
> > >...
2014 Dec 03
1
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...t; It's only used by MMIO, right?
>
> I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here.
I'd say let's not touch mmio ATM.
> >
> >
> > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
> > >
> > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
> >
> > Don't we need to update rings?
>
> See above, I'll call update_rings in there.
>
> >
> > > }
> > >...
2014 Dec 03
0
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...failing to migrate this state)
>
> Do we have to touch this now?
> It's only used by MMIO, right?
I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here.
>
>
> > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
> >
> > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
>
> Don't we need to update rings?
See above, I'll call update_rings in there.
>
> > }
> >
> > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *v...
2014 Dec 03
0
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...failing to migrate this state)
>
> Do we have to touch this now?
> It's only used by MMIO, right?
I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here.
>
>
> > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
> >
> > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
>
> Don't we need to update rings?
See above, I'll call update_rings in there.
>
> > }
> >
> > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *v...
2014 Dec 03
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:03:45 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > void virtio_queue_set_num(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int num)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * For virtio-1 devices, the number of buffers may only be
> > + * updated if the ring addresses have
2014 Dec 03
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:03:45 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > void virtio_queue_set_num(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int num)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * For virtio-1 devices, the number of buffers may only be
> > + * updated if the ring addresses have
2014 Dec 11
0
[PATCH RFC v6 07/20] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
+ virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment)...
2014 Dec 11
0
[PATCH RFC v6 07/20] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
+ virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment)...
2014 Dec 03
0
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) {
qemu_put_be32(f, vdev->...
2014 Dec 03
0
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) {
qemu_put_be32(f, vdev->...
2014 Dec 02
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +776,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
+ virtqueue_update_rings(&vdev->vq[n]);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +970,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_a...
2014 Dec 02
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
...return;
+ }
/* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
* silently failing to migrate this state)
@@ -755,7 +776,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
- virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
+ virtqueue_update_rings(&vdev->vq[n]);
}
void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
@@ -949,7 +970,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
if (k->has_variable_vring_a...
2014 Dec 02
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> For virtio-1 devices, we allow a more complex queue layout that doesn't
> require descriptor table and rings on a physically-contigous memory area:
> add virtio_queue_set_rings() to allow transports to set this up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com>
> ---
>
2014 Dec 02
2
[PATCH RFC v5 07/19] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> For virtio-1 devices, we allow a more complex queue layout that doesn't
> require descriptor table and rings on a physically-contigous memory area:
> add virtio_queue_set_rings() to allow transports to set this up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com>
> ---
>
2015 Jan 22
2
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v6 07/20] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
.../* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
> * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
> * silently failing to migrate this state)
> @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
>
> vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
> + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n);
> }
>
> void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
>...
2015 Jan 22
2
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v6 07/20] virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout
.../* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this
> * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than
> * silently failing to migrate this state)
> @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align)
> assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment);
>
> vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align;
> - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]);
> + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n);
> }
>
> void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq)
> @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f)
>...
2014 Dec 11
45
[PATCH RFC v6 00/20] qemu: towards virtio-1 host support
And yet another iteration of virtio-1 support in qemu, tested with the
latest virtio kernel patches. Find it at
git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1
Changes from v5:
- fixed stupid bug in "virtio: support more feature bits": we need to
define a proper prop backend for 64 bit wide handling...
- don't negotiate revision 1 unless VERSION_1 is offered
- use 64 bit wide features
2014 Dec 11
45
[PATCH RFC v6 00/20] qemu: towards virtio-1 host support
And yet another iteration of virtio-1 support in qemu, tested with the
latest virtio kernel patches. Find it at
git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1
Changes from v5:
- fixed stupid bug in "virtio: support more feature bits": we need to
define a proper prop backend for 64 bit wide handling...
- don't negotiate revision 1 unless VERSION_1 is offered
- use 64 bit wide features