From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_scsi: Implement fc_host
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:47:13 +0200
Message-ID: <20170117174705-mutt-send-email-mst__33116.9187477373$1484668061$gmane$org@kernel.org>
References: <20170116160430.11815-1-famz@redhat.com>
	<20170116160430.11815-3-famz@redhat.com>
	<95f96b48-aa75-0094-a634-db9c13035336@redhat.com>
	<20170116172656.GB11780@lemon>
	<4049e6cf-b398-4ebd-3248-77c333e65331@redhat.com>
	<20170117140500.GA19638@lemon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170117140500.GA19638@lemon>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, stefanha@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:05:00PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 01/17 14:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 16/01/2017 18:26, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > >> Is the endianness correct for big-endian host here?
> > >
> > > I think so. The fc_host sysfs uses u64 to represent port_name and node_name,
> > > this patch does the same, so using virtio_* helpers for these fields should
> > > handle the endianness correctly.
> > 
> > I was suspicious about it because they are defined as "u8 x[8]" in the
> > virtio_scsi_config struct.  So you would need to read with
> > virtio_cread_bytes and pass the result to wwn_to_u64.
> > 
> > For example, if you have 0x500123456789abcd this would be
> > 
> > 	0x50 0x01 0x23 0x45 0x67 0x89 0xab 0cd
> > 
> > in virtio_scsi_config, and then virtio_cread64 would read it as a
> > little-endian u64, 0xcdab896745230150.  Maybe your QEMU patch is also
> > writing things as little-endian 64-bit integers, rather than 8-element
> > arrays of bytes?
> 
> Yes, they all used 64-bit integers in a "less surprising" endian. I think there
> is an endianness conecpt to WWN, as in 0x500123456789abcd; and there is an
> native endianness to virtio, which is little-endian. If we use a "u8 x[8]" type
> in the spec and want the WWN's MSB, namely the 0x50 stuff, to be the first byte,
> is it worth to explicitly document that to avoid confusion?
> 
> Fam

Can't hurt, for sure.