[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] Reserve device id for RDMA device
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:50 PM Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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.) > Yes, the first patch was rejected by the virtio-dev mail list because I was not a subscriber, so I re-sent another one. Thanks. Junji
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]