search for: is_legaci

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > check_legacy()? > > I would just have 2 masks: legacy_features and features. But these belong to the device type and the transport

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > check_legacy()? > > I would just have 2 masks: legacy_features and features. But these belong to the device type and the transport

Support the new CCW_CMD_SET_VQ format for virtio-1 devices. While we're at it, refactor the code a bit and enforce big endian fields (which had always been required, even for legacy). Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth at linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------

Support the new CCW_CMD_SET_VQ format for virtio-1 devices. While we're at it, refactor the code a bit and enforce big endian fields (which had always been required, even for legacy). Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth at linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > > check_legacy()? > > > > I

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > > check_legacy()? > > > > I

On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 17:44 +0000, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Good. But your current code will also try to support a mix: device that > uses the new transport underneath, but old layout and semantics on top. It will not try to support the mix, but rather will not stop it from working. > This has no value: the spec does *not* define such devices > and it also does not match any

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > > check_legacy()? > > > > I

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:18:25 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > So we should have a per-device callback into the transport layer, say > > > check_legacy()? > > > > I

On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 17:44 +0000, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Good. But your current code will also try to support a mix: device that > uses the new transport underneath, but old layout and semantics on top. It will not try to support the mix, but rather will not stop it from working. > This has no value: the spec does *not* define such devices > and it also does not match any

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:42:11 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:24:22 +0200 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:16:33PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > Yet

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:42:11 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:24:22 +0200 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:16:33PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > Yet

Hi, here's the next version of my virtio-1 qemu patchset. Using virtio-1 virtio-blk and virtio-net devices with a guest kernel built from <1416829787-14252-1-git-send-email-mst at redhat.com> still seems to work for the virtio-ccw transport. Changes from v1: - rebased against current master - don't advertise VERSION_1 for all devices, make devices switch it on individually

Hi, here's the next version of my virtio-1 qemu patchset. Using virtio-1 virtio-blk and virtio-net devices with a guest kernel built from <1416829787-14252-1-git-send-email-mst at redhat.com> still seems to work for the virtio-ccw transport. Changes from v1: - rebased against current master - don't advertise VERSION_1 for all devices, make devices switch it on individually

Next version of virtio-1 patches for qemu. Only change from v2 is splitting out the vring accessors into a separate header file - should hopefully fix the build issues. Cornelia Huck (9): virtio: cull virtio_bus_set_vdev_features virtio: support more feature bits s390x/virtio-ccw: fix check for WRITE_FEAT virtio: introduce legacy virtio devices virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout

Next version of virtio-1 patches for qemu. Only change from v2 is splitting out the vring accessors into a separate header file - should hopefully fix the build issues. Cornelia Huck (9): virtio: cull virtio_bus_set_vdev_features virtio: support more feature bits s390x/virtio-ccw: fix check for WRITE_FEAT virtio: introduce legacy virtio devices virtio: allow virtio-1 queue layout

Yet another version of the virtio-1 support patches. This one has seen some (very) light testing with the virtio-1 guest support patches currently on vhost-next. Changes from v3: - Add support for FEATURES_OK. We refuse to set features after the driver has set this in the status field, and we allow to fail setting the status if the features are inconsistent. - Add missing virtio-1 changes

Yet another version of the virtio-1 support patches. This one has seen some (very) light testing with the virtio-1 guest support patches currently on vhost-next. Changes from v3: - Add support for FEATURES_OK. We refuse to set features after the driver has set this in the status field, and we allow to fail setting the status if the features are inconsistent. - Add missing virtio-1 changes

This patchset aims to get us some way to implement virtio-1 compliant and transitional devices in qemu. Branch available at git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1 I've mainly focused on: - endianness handling - extended feature bits - virtio-ccw new/changed commands Thanks go to Thomas for some preliminary work in this area. I've been able to start guests both with and without the

This patchset aims to get us some way to implement virtio-1 compliant and transitional devices in qemu. Branch available at git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1 I've mainly focused on: - endianness handling - extended feature bits - virtio-ccw new/changed commands Thanks go to Thomas for some preliminary work in this area. I've been able to start guests both with and without the