Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit in device status

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

On 9/18/2023 2:17 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:45 AM
> >
> > On 9/18/2023 12:42 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > <virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org> On Behalf Of Zhu, Lingshan
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:27 AM
> > > > a new feature bit: VIRTIO_F_RING_SUSPEND_RESET. If this feature bit
> > > > has been negotiated then the device allow reset a vq after SUSPEND.
> > > This is simply a wrong semantics to build to operate individual object after its
> > parent object is suspended.
> > A device can choose to respond to a set of signals and ignore others, right?
> >
> > And, This is not your admin vq based LM solution, therefore there is NO PARENT
> > objects.
> There is parent object.
> There is VQ which you propose to do SUSPEND_RESET of the parent virtio device which is already SUSPENDED.
that is why we plan to implement a new feature bit to control this behavior.

However, in next version, as MST suggested, I will forbid resetting vqs 
after SUSPEND.
> Admin commands and vq exists in the spec because to admin work.
> The admin vq series is split from its users because it is hard to do everything in one go.
I failed to process this comment, how is this related to the question?