Re: [PATCH] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit in device status

[David Stevens <stevensd@chromium.org>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:36âAM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 4:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:44:41PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/20/2024 1:09 PM, David Stevens wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:06âPM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/19/2024 2:46 PM, David Stevens wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:11âPM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 09:23:06PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> >>>>>>> This commit allows the driver to suspend the device by
> >>>>>>> introducing a new status bit SUSPEND in device_status.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This commit also introduce a new feature bit VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND
> >>>>>>> which indicating whether the device support SUSPEND.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This SUSPEND bit is transport-independent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio PÃrez <eperezma@redhat.com>
> >>>>>> Could we get some kind of dscription how this has taken into
> >>>>>> consideration the proposal from David Stevens?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I find it really tiring when there are competing patches with authors
> >>>>>> ignoring each other's work and leaving it up to reviewers to
> >>>>>> figure out how do the patches compare.
> >>>>> This patch looks like it could be used to implement my use case.
> >>>>> However, parts of it are a bit vague and imprecise, so it's hard to
> >>>>> actually say whether my use case would actually be covered by a
> >>>>> specific implementation of this proposal.
> >>>> I am on vacation till this Friday. Shall we co-work on this and
> >>>> post something new together?
> >>> That works for me.
> >> Cool! How about two patches in a new series:
> >> 1) a general virtio suspending patch describing suspending behaviors for all
> >> virtio devices from me, an updating version of this patch
> >> 2) a PCI transport suspending patch from you, describing PCI specific
> >> behaviors.
> >>
> >> Dose this sound good to you?
> > Well David's patch was more precise than yours, and also better worded.
> > So think if there's an agreement you guys would really start with that,
> > move the functionality to the status bit and make other changes as needed.
> I think we plan to cooperate on a new series including both the status
> bit and
> PCI transport, collaborations on both of our patches.
>
> Let's see whether this looks good to David

That works for me. I can incorporate the feedback on both proposals
and send out a combined version in the next day or so.

Thanks,
David