[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit in device status
"Zhu, Lingshan" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev,dev.linux.lists.virtio-comment |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9/18/2023 2:17 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >> From: Zhu, Lingshan <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:45 AM >> >> On 9/18/2023 12:42 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> <[email protected] open.org> On Behalf Of Zhu, Lingshan >>>> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:27 AM >>>> a new feature bit: VIRTIO_F_RING_SUSPEND_RESET. If this feature bit >>>> has been negotiated then the device allow reset a vq after SUSPEND. >>> This is simply a wrong semantics to build to operate individual object after its >> parent object is suspended. >> A device can choose to respond to a set of signals and ignore others, right? >> >> And, This is not your admin vq based LM solution, therefore there is NO PARENT >> objects. > There is parent object. > There is VQ which you propose to do SUSPEND_RESET of the parent virtio device which is already SUSPENDED. that is why we plan to implement a new feature bit to control this behavior. However, in next version, as MST suggested, I will forbid resetting vqs after SUSPEND. > > Admin commands and vq exists in the spec because to admin work. > The admin vq series is split from its users because it is hard to do everything in one go. I failed to process this comment, how is this related to the question? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]