Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "virtio_blk_f_scsi_cmd_size".
2013 Mar 14
4
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...u32 cmd_size;
\change_unchanged
\end_layout
@@ -6085,6 +6119,21 @@ Until version 1.1, QEMU remained in writeback mode even after a guest announced
\end_inset
.
+\change_inserted 1986246365 1363258989
+
+\end_layout
+
+\begin_layout Enumerate
+
+\change_inserted 1986246365 1363259237
+If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is negotiated, Guest should set the desired
+ size for scsi commands to the
+\emph on
+cmd_size
+\emph default
+field.
+\change_unchanged
+
\end_layout
\begin_layout Section*
@@ -6369,8 +6418,33 @@ cmd
\emph default
field is only present for scsi packet command requests, and indicates the...
2013 Mar 14
4
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...u32 cmd_size;
\change_unchanged
\end_layout
@@ -6085,6 +6119,21 @@ Until version 1.1, QEMU remained in writeback mode even after a guest announced
\end_inset
.
+\change_inserted 1986246365 1363258989
+
+\end_layout
+
+\begin_layout Enumerate
+
+\change_inserted 1986246365 1363259237
+If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is negotiated, Guest should set the desired
+ size for scsi commands to the
+\emph on
+cmd_size
+\emph default
+field.
+\change_unchanged
+
\end_layout
\begin_layout Section*
@@ -6369,8 +6418,33 @@ cmd
\emph default
field is only present for scsi packet command requests, and indicates the...
2013 Jun 13
2
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...gt; > (MST drew my attention back to this)
> >
> > Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
> > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
> > reasons.
>
> It's there already, isn't it:
>
> If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
> This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
> the command length
> can be derived from the length of this buffer.
>
Wait, I think I got it: you actually want to rename this
VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_SG and have it affect all requests?
>
>
&g...
2013 Jun 13
2
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...gt; > (MST drew my attention back to this)
> >
> > Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
> > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
> > reasons.
>
> It's there already, isn't it:
>
> If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
> This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
> the command length
> can be derived from the length of this buffer.
>
Wait, I think I got it: you actually want to rename this
VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_SG and have it affect all requests?
>
>
&g...
2013 Jun 13
3
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 04:15:28PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 14/03/2013 12:10, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> > Add field for guest to specify command size for virtio-blk.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
>
> OK, but Rusty usually tweaks
2013 Jun 13
3
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 04:15:28PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 14/03/2013 12:10, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> > Add field for guest to specify command size for virtio-blk.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
>
> OK, but Rusty usually tweaks
2013 Jun 19
3
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...t; > > Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
>> > > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
>> > > reasons.
>> >
>> > It's there already, isn't it:
>> >
>> > If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
>> > This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
>> > the command length
>> > can be derived from the length of this buffer.
>> >
>>
>> Wait, I think I got it: you actually want to rename this
>> VIRTI...
2013 Jun 19
3
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...t; > > Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
>> > > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
>> > > reasons.
>> >
>> > It's there already, isn't it:
>> >
>> > If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
>> > This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
>> > the command length
>> > can be derived from the length of this buffer.
>> >
>>
>> Wait, I think I got it: you actually want to rename this
>> VIRTI...
2013 Jun 13
0
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...ted yourself
> > or want me to?
>
> (MST drew my attention back to this)
>
> Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
> the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
> reasons.
It's there already, isn't it:
If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
the command length
can be derived from the length of this buffer.
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
2013 Jun 17
0
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...this)
> > >
> > > Please do. And please add a note about this feature: that without it,
> > > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
> > > reasons.
> >
> > It's there already, isn't it:
> >
> > If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
> > This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
> > the command length
> > can be derived from the length of this buffer.
> >
>
> Wait, I think I got it: you actually want to rename this
> VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_SG and have it a...
2013 Jun 19
0
[PATCH] virtio-spec: add field for scsi command size
...lease add a note about this feature: that without it,
> >> > > the descriptor layout must be on the right boundaries for historical
> >> > > reasons.
> >> >
> >> > It's there already, isn't it:
> >> >
> >> > If VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI_CMD_SIZE is not negotiated,
> >> > This field must reside in a single, separate read-only buffer;
> >> > the command length
> >> > can be derived from the length of this buffer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wait, I think I got it: you actually want...