Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] device-context: Define the device context fields for device migration

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

On 10/13/2023 7:54 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 3:14 PM
> > > > > > How do you transfer the ownership?
> > > > > An additional ownership deletgation by a new admin command.
> > > > if you think this can work, do you want to cook a patch to implement
> > > > this before you submitting this live migration series?
> > > I answered this already above.
> > talk is cheap, show me your patch
> Huh. We presented the infrastructure that migrates, 30+ device types, covering device context ideas from Oracle.
> Covering P2P, supporting device_reset, FLR, dirty page tracking.
>
> Please have some respect for other members who covered more ground than your series.
>
> What more? Apply the same nested concept on the member device as Michael suggested, it is nested virtualization maintain exact same semantics.
> So a VF is mapped as PF to the L1 guest.
> L1 guest can enable SR-IOV on it, and map one VF to L2 guest.
>
> This nested work can be extended in future, once first level nesting is covered.
>
> > Answer all questions above, if you think a management VF can work, please
> > show me your patch.
> The idea evolves from technical debate then pointing fingers like your comment.
>
> I think a positive discussion with Michael and a pointer to the paper from Jason gave a good direction of doing _right_ nesting that follows two principles.
> a. efficiency property
> b. equivalence property
>
> (c. resource control is natural already)
>
> Both apply at VMM and at VM level enabling recursive virtualization, by having VF that can act as PF inside the guest.
>
> [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/361011.361073
Please just show me your patch resolving these opens, how about start 
from defining virito-fs device context and your management VF?