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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

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

Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] introduce virtio vhost-user backend device type

On 21/6/19 11:43 Î.Î., Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:54:30PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 09:47:36PM +0300, Nikos Dragazis wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> this PATCH presents an updated version of the RFC virtio device spec for
>>> the virtio-vhost-user device. The initial RFC implementation can be
>>> found here: [1].
>>> This PATCH is split into four parts:
>>> 1. the first commit is just a refactored version of the initial RFC
>>> implementation [1]. I just moved the device spec into a separate .tex
>>> file and changed the device id from #24 to #28 since the ids #24-#27 are
>>> reserved.
>>> 2. the second commit fixes some minor issues with the device spec. This
>>> is quite straightforward.
>>> 3. the third commit enhances the notification capability with some
>>> device/driver requirements. This makes sense because the notification
>>> capability behaves similarly to the MSI-X capability, thereby having
>>> some requirements that need to be mentioned.
>>> 4. the fourth commit synchronizes the shared memory capability with a
>>> recent patch [2] that attempts to standardize a standalone
>>> SHARED_MEMORY_CFG virtio capability.
>>> v3 changes:
>>>  * Device Requirements for the Notification Capability: point out the
>>>    difference between the MSI-X Table Size stored in the Message Control
>>>    register of the MSI-X capability structure and the actual MSI-X Table
>>>    Size
>>> v2 changes:
>>>  * Change device id from #25 to #28
>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>> I'm happy with v3.
>> Any other comments or shall we proceed to a vote?
>> Stefan
> I think we need to wait for shared memory part to be finalized, right?

Hi Michael,

judging from the mailing list, I see that there is still some ongoing
activity on the shared memory patchset. So, yes, waiting for this
patchset to be finalized would be more proper.

Please, let me know when you are done with that.


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