On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:33:57PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/2/19 下午4:21, Wei Xu wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:49:42PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>On 2019/2/18 下午10:46, Wei Xu wrote: > >>>>Do we allow chain more descriptors than vq size in the case of indirect? > >>>>According to the spec: > >>>> > >>>>" > >>>> > >>>>The device limits the number of descriptors in a list through a > >>>>transport-specific and/or device-specific value. If not limited, > >>>>the maximum number of descriptors in a list is the virt queue > >>>>size. > >>>>" > >>>> > >>>>This looks possible, so the above is probably wrong if the max number of > >>>>chained descriptors is negotiated through a device specific way. > >>>> > >>>OK, I will remove this check, while it is necessary to have a limitation > >>>for indirect descriptor anyway, otherwise it is possible to hit an overflow > >>>since presumably u16 is used for most number/size in the spec. > >>> > >>Please try to test block and scsi device for you changes as well. > >Any idea about what kind of test should be covered? AFAICT, currently > >packed ring is targeted for virtio-net as discussed during voting spec. > > > >Wei > > > Well it's not only for net for sure, it should support all kinds of device. > For testing, you should test basic function plus migration.
For sure we will support all the other devices, can we make it for virtio-net device first and then move on to other devices? Also, can anybody give me a CLI example for block and scsi devices? I will give it a quick shot. Wei > > Thanks > > > > > >>Thanks > >> > >> >
