[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbfc608b-2bfa-e4c7-c2b9-dbcfe63518cb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:35:25 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc: "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tiwei.bie@...el.com" <tiwei.bie@...el.com>,
"maxime.coquelin@...hat.com" <maxime.coquelin@...hat.com>,
"cunming.liang@...el.com" <cunming.liang@...el.com>,
"zhihong.wang@...el.com" <zhihong.wang@...el.com>,
"rob.miller@...adcom.com" <rob.miller@...adcom.com>,
"xiao.w.wang@...el.com" <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>,
"haotian.wang@...ive.com" <haotian.wang@...ive.com>,
"lingshan.zhu@...el.com" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
"eperezma@...hat.com" <eperezma@...hat.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
"kevin.tian@...el.com" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"stefanha@...hat.com" <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"aadam@...hat.com" <aadam@...hat.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"hanand@...inx.com" <hanand@...inx.com>,
"mhabets@...arflare.com" <mhabets@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] vDPA: introduce vDPA bus
On 2020/2/18 下午9:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 02:08:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>> I thought you were copied in the patch [1], maybe we can move vhost related
>> discussion there to avoid confusion.
>>
>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/811210/
> Wow, that is .. confusing.
>
> So this is supposed to duplicate the uAPI of vhost-user?
It tries to reuse the uAPI of vhost with some extension.
> But it is
> open coded and duplicated because .. vdpa?
I'm not sure I get here, vhost module is reused for vhost-vdpa and all
current vhost device (e.g net) uses their own char device.
>
>> So it's cheaper and simpler to introduce a new bus instead of refactoring a
>> well known bus and API where brunches of drivers and devices had been
>> implemented for years.
> If you reason for this approach is to ease the implementation then you
> should talk about it in the cover letters/etc
I will add more rationale in both cover letter and this patch.
Thanks
>
> Maybe it is reasonable to do this because the rework is too great, I
> don't know, but to me this whole thing looks rather messy.
>
> Remember this stuff is all uAPI as it shows up in sysfs, so you can
> easilly get stuck with it forever.
>
> Jason
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists