On 6/27/2016 2:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Linda Knippers
> On 6/24/2016 1:44 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> QEMU 2.6 implements nascent support for nvdimm DSMs. Depending on
>> configuration it may only implement the function0 dsm to indicate that
>> no other DSMs are available. Commit 31eca76ba2fc "nfit, libnvdimm:
>> limited/whitelisted dimm command marshaling mechanism" breaks QEMU, but
>> QEMU is spec compliant. Per the spec the way to indicate that no
>> functions are supported is:
>> If Function Index is zero, the return is a buffer containing one bit
>> for each function index, starting with zero. Bit 0 indicates whether
>> there is support for any functions other than function 0 for the
>> specified UUID and Revision ID. If set to zero, no functions are
>> supported (other than function zero) for the specified UUID and
>> Revision ID.
> The rest of that paragraph is:
> If set to one, at least one additional function is supported. For all other bits
> in the buffer, a bit is set to zero to indicate if that function index is not
> supported for the specific UUID and Revision ID. (For example, bit 1 set to 0
> indicates that function index 1 is not supported for the specific UUID and
> Revision ID.)
>> Update the nfit driver to determine the family (interface UUID) without
>> requiring the implementation to define any other functions, i.e.
>> short-circuit acpi_check_dsm() to succeed per the spec. The nfit driver
>> appears to be the only user passing funcs==0 to acpi_check_dsm(), so
>> this behavior change of the common routine should be limited to the
>> probing done by the nfit driver.
> I don't understand why we're special casing this to support QEMU only when
> there are no DSM functions supported. If we want to implement the
> spec and support function zero, I think we should support it correctly.
> That means returning the correct value for all spec compliant callers,
> even when there are functions that are supported.
QEMU 2.6 already shipped, so whatever we do we should not regress
those binaries. The QEMU behavior could be argued as not spec
compliant, but they've implemented enough of function0 to answer the
"which family" probe.
How would you argue that?
Yes, if an implementation supports function0 it
should say so in the returned bitmask,
But in other places you explicitly prevent function 0 from
but by the time we've
determined that function0 is "not supported" we've already
successfully executed a function0 request.
If they advertise a _DSM, I think they have to support function 0.