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

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:35 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:31:32PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:28 PM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Just to clarify my points. I meant that vendors may choose to
> > implement both SRIOV and SIOV in the hardware. And I believe this is
> > what most vendor will do.
> >
> > But it doesn't mean the control path needs to be shared.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Okay. But I feel some general structure and terminology should be shared, given
> the similarity.

Yes, I agree.

Thanks

>
>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zhu Lingshan
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Zhu Lingshan
> > > >>
> > >
>