Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state
"Zhu, Lingshan" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev,dev.linux.lists.virtio-comment |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9/26/2023 6:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 05:25:42PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: >> We don't want to repeat the discussions, it looks like endless circle with >> no direction. > OK let me try to direct this discussion. > You guys were speaking past each other, no dialog is happening. > And as long as it goes on no progress will be made and you > will keep going in circles. > > Parav here made an effort and attempted to summarize > use-cases addressed by your proposal but not his. > He couldn't resist adding "a yes but" in there oh well. > But now I hope you know he knows about your use-cases? > > So please do the same. Do you see any advantages to Parav's > proposal as compared to yours? Try to list them and > if possible try not to accompany the list with "yes but" > (put it in a separate mail if you must ;) ). > If you won't be able to see any, let me know and I'll try to help. > > Once each of you and Parav have finally heard the other and > the other also knows he's been heard, that's when we can > try to make progress by looking for something that addresses > all use-cases as opposed to endlessly repeating same arguments. Sure Michael, I will not say "yes but" here. From Parav's proposal, he intends to migrate a member device by its owner device through the admin vq, thus necessary admin vq commands are introduced in his series. I see his proposal can: 1) meet some customers requirements without nested and bare-metal 2) align with Nvidia production 3) easier to emulate by onboard SOC The general purpose of his proposal and mine are aligned: migrate virtio devices. Jason has ever proposed to collaborate, please allow me quote his proposal: " Let me repeat once again here for the possible steps to collaboration: 1) define virtqueue state, inflight descriptors in the section of basic facility but not under the admin commands 2) define the dirty page tracking, device context/states in the section of basic facility but not under the admin commands 3) define transport specific interfaces or admin commands to access them " I totally agree with his proposal. Does this work for you Michael? Thanks Zhu Lingshan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]