Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state

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

On 9/27/2023 6:39 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:50 PM
> > I see his proposal can:
> > 1) meet some customers requirements without nested and bare-metal
> > 2) align with Nvidia production
> Slightly inaccurate.
> The work produced is for the virtio spec update for the users.
>
> I have missed adding other contributors Sign-off who also share similar use cases, which I will add in v1.
>
> > 3) easier to emulate by onboard SOC
> >
> > The general purpose of his proposal and mine are aligned: migrate virtio	
> > devices.
> Great.
>
> > Jason has ever proposed to collaborate, please allow me quote his proposal:
> >
> > "
> > Let me repeat once again here for the possible steps to collaboration:
> >
> > 1) define virtqueue state, inflight descriptors in the section of
> > basic facility but not under the admin commands
> > 2) define the dirty page tracking, device context/states in the
> > section of basic facility but not under the admin commands
> > 3) define transport specific interfaces or admin commands to access them
> > "
> >
> > I totally agree with his proposal.
> We started discussing some of the it.
> If I draw parallels, one should not say "detach descriptors from virtqueue" for the infrastructure that exists in the basic facilities.
> If so, one should explain the technical design reason and it would make sense.
not sure what is "detach descriptors from virtqueue", but admin vq 
carries commands anyway.
> So let's discuss it.
> I like to better understand the _real_ technical reason for detaching it.
so please to or cc me in your series.