[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/4] content: Introduce driver/device auxiliary notifications
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:12:06 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 07:41:08PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:54:35 +0200 > >> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > This highlights another problem, however: When we introduce new features > >> > that require a transport-specific implementation, we often end up with a > >> > PCI implementation, but sometimes MMIO and more often ccw are left > >> > behind -- which is understandable, as PCI is what most people use, and > >> > ccw is something only a very few people are familiar with. This sadly > >> > means that we have a backlog of features supported in PCI, but not in > >> > ccw... requiring implementations for ccw would put an undue burden on > >> > contributors, as most of them are unlikely to write anything for a > >> > mainframe, ever. On the flip side, I do not have enough bandwith to deal > >> > with all of this. > >> > >> I'm completely with you in a sense that I see the same problem. I think > >> we have to get these resolved on a case by case basis. In my opinion at > >> least in theory it would make a big difference, whether the new feature > >> obligatory or not. But since VIRTIO is big on compatibility, and also > >> cares about the initial investment required, in practice, I think, we > >> are mostly good with the transports delivering features on their own > >> schedule. What I mean here is: it is kind of difficult to make a new > >> facility (like shm, or aux notifications) mandatory, because stuff > >> that conform to a previous incarnation of the spec would become > >> non-conform. > > I don't think there's a big case for making new things mandatory; > everything should be guarded by a feature bit or similar. Yes! I tried to say the same, just differently :) > > >> > >> And the people who care about the particular transport, and the users > >> of the transport (indirectly also platforms) should make up their own > >> mind with regards to whether and when to invest into the new facilities > >> and the new tech and opportunities associated with those. > > PCI will probably satisfy the needs of the vast majority of users, and > MMIO is not too alien to just change at the same time. ccw is the big > problem. Is IBM still spending resources on virtio-ccw? [My own > involvement with s390x has dwindled a lot, so it would be great to see > some of it picked up by others. Certainly not trying to pin everything > on Halil, though.] Yes! IBM is definitely (still) invested in virtio-ccw! I don't work on Virtio on s390x full time any more, but I'm totally committed to fulfilling my duties as a TC member and as the virtio-ccw sub-maintainer. IBM is looking for a solution to at least replace what the Virtio community has lost with me gaining new responsibilities not closely related to Virtio. BTW, should I not show up in time on some discussion, mentioning my name in the body of the email should help. I auto-tag my emails, and I have a separate tag for that. When I'm completely under water I check for that tag to avoid not showing up when my name is called :D Thanks for calling my name occasionally! Regards, Halil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]