OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH V3 RESEND 1/4] Introduce virito transport virtqueue




On 8/9/2022 5:21 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:19 PM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> wrote:


On 8/9/2022 5:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:36:43PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
+
+A device that offers feature bit VIRTIO_F_TRANSPT_VQ and a transport virtqueue is a management device.
+It processes the commands through the transport virtqueue commands.
I think we need to be verbose here, e.g what did those transport
virtqueue commands do? What's the relationship between management
device and managed device?
I will add an overview of the transport virtqueue commands here, and a
description of the relationship in the "managed device" section.
Transport is fine but management of devices is clearly something
nvidia's patches do. So I think it's best to reuse the concept of device
groups for this, from Max's patchset. Let's not replicate that work at
least. I promised Max to help a bit with wording so I'll soon send a
revision of his patchset, the generic part about device group
from which you should be able to reuse.
Of course, it is possible to add the device groups in this series for sure.

What I don't understand is: what kind of commands against a device
group? Destroy all?
And normally a parent device only support one kind of devices, like a
SRIOV capable
virtio-net PF only supports virtio-net VFs on it, and maybe there will
not be
a device support both SIOV and SRIOV, it is complex in the HW
implementation.
For having backward compatibility? (E.g for platforms that don't support SIOV)

Thanks
If not a device model like SIOV which does not have a dedicated physical transport layer, the question would be: Why do we need a side channel for a VF? This looks conflicts with VF provisioning and virtio-spec definitions. E.g, why allow changing MSI in the flight
outside the guest control?

Thanks,
Zhu Lingshan

Thanks,
Zhu Lingshan




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]