Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 5/5] virtio-pci: implement VIRTIO_F_QUEUE_STATE

["Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>]

On 9/12/2023 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:08 PM
> >
> > On 9/12/2023 1:51 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:19 AM
> > > >
> > > > On 9/11/2023 7:50 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > > > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:03 PM By the way, do you see
> > > > > > anything we need to improve in this series?
> > > > > Admin commands for passthrough devices of [1] is comprehensive
> > > > > proposal
> > > > covering all the aspects.
> > > > > To me [1] is superset work that covers all needed functionality and
> > > > > downtime
> > > > aspects.
> > > > > I plan to improve [1] with v1 this week by extending device context
> > > > > and
> > > > addressing other review comments.
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202309/msg00061
> > > > > .h
> > > > > tml
> > > > I am not sure, we have discussed a lot about the potential issues in
> > > > the treads. I guess we should resolve them first. E.g., nested use cases.
> > > You are using nesting use case as the _only_ use case and attempt to steer
> > using that.
> > > Not right.
> > >
> > > If you want to discuss, then lets have both the use cases, attempt to converge
> > and if we can its really good.
> > > If we cannot, both requirements should be handled differently.
> > Isn't nested a clear use case that should be supported?
> Most users who care for running real applications and real performance, have not asked for nesting.
> It is not mandatory case; it may be required for some users.
> I donât know who needs M level nesting and how cpu also support its acceleration etc to run some reasonable workload.
Nested is a common use case and it is mandatory.