Re: [PATCH] Reserve device id for RDMA device

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Junji Wei <weijunji@bytedance.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 7:28 PM, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 03 2021, Junji Wei <weijunji@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Use device ID 42
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Junji Wei <weijunji@bytedance.com>
>>> ---
>>> content.tex | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
>>> index 3aeb4a4..b57c997 100644
>>> --- a/content.tex
>>> +++ b/content.tex
>>> @@ -2878,6 +2878,8 @@ \chapter{Device Types}\label{sec:Device Types}
>>> \hline
>>> 41         &   GPIO device \\
>>> \hline
>>> +42         &   RDMA device \\
>>> +\hline
>>> \end{tabular}
>>> 
>>> Some of the devices above are unspecified by this document,
>> 
>> Do we have an answer to the issues raised with the QEMU patches? IOW, is
>
> Yes.
>
>> it reasonable to expect that we can actually implement a usuable RDMA
>> device? While device IDs are generally cheap, it would be good not to
>> have too many dead entries.
>
> I think we can implement an usable RDMA device through uRDMA (a
> software implementation of the RoCEv2 protocol in QEMU with VFIO
> or DPDK).

If nobody disagrees, we can start a vote.

One last question: there were two patches, this one and the one linked
in the issue... I think they are the same, right? (I do not trust myself
on Friday afternoons.)