On 12/03/2012 05:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 02:05:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On Monday, December 03, 2012 12:34:08 PM Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> +static const struct ethtool_ops virtnet_ethtool_ops;
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Converting between virtqueue no. and kernel tx/rx queue no.
>>>> + * 0:rx0 1:tx0 2:cvq 3:rx1 4:tx1 ... 2N+1:rxN 2N+2:txN
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int vq2txq(struct virtqueue *vq)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int index = virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq);
>>>> + return index == 1 ? 0 : (index - 2) / 2;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int txq2vq(int txq)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return txq ? 2 * txq + 2 : 1;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int vq2rxq(struct virtqueue *vq)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int index = virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq);
>>>> + return index ? (index - 1) / 2 : 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rxq2vq(int rxq)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return rxq ? 2 * rxq + 1 : 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>> I thought MST changed the proposed spec to make the control queue always
>>> the last one, so this logic becomes trivial.
>> But it may break the support of legacy guest. If we boot a legacy single
>> queue
>> guest on a 2 queue virtio-net device. It may think vq 2 is cvq which is
>> indeed
>> rx1.
> Legacy guyest support should be handled by host using feature
> bits in the usual way: host should detect legacy guest
> by checking the VIRTIO_NET_F_RFS feature.
>
> If VIRTIO_NET_F_RFS is acked, cvq is vq max_virtqueue_pairs * 2.
> If it's not acked, cvq is vq 2.
>
We could, but we didn't gain much from this. Furthermore, we need also do the
dynamic creation/destroying of virtqueues during feature negotiation which
seems not supported in qemu now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
