On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:22 AM Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:18 PM > > > > > > > > > It's a must for ABI and migration compatibility: > > > > > > > > 1) The offset is not necessarily a page boundary > > > > 2) The length is not necessarily times of a PAGE_SIZE > > > > 3) PAGE_SIZE varies among different archs > > > > 4) Two vendors may have two different layout for the structure > > > > > > Migration compatibility check and device composition work will start for > > regular PCI VF in virtio. > > > Two vendors will had some level of programmability as well to make this > > happen. > > > It is orthogonal topic. > > > > Actually not, having new blockers for live migration will complicate the > > solution > > in the future. > > > It is not a blocker, its just another flexible field that hw vendors will > align to a common way to configure. > > Just to make sure this is the BAR0 size, right?
We're discussing "if mediating 1.x device is a must" as I reply to what you said: " Trapping non legacy accessing for 1.x doesn't make sense. " > > > And 1) 2) 3) can happen even if we don't care about migration compatibility, > > no? > > I guess one we have spec definition, it wont be a problem. How can you assign a cap length 4K to a guest assuming 8K as page size? Thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
