On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:29:46AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2021/2/8 下午8:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:42:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2021/2/5 下午11:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:55:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > I don't exactly get why we need to split the modern driver out, > > > > and it can confuse people who are used to be seeing virtio-pci. > > > > > > The virtio-pci module still there. No user visible changes. Just some > > > codes > > > that could be shared with other driver were split out. > > > > > What I am saying is this: we can have virtio-vdpa depend on > > virtio-pci without splitting the common code out to an > > extra module. > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > The vdpa thing so far looks like a development tool, why do > > > > we care that it depends on a bit of extra code? > > > > > > If I'm not misunderstanding, trying to share codes is proposed by you > > > here: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/10/232 > > > > > > We also had the plan to convert IFCVF to use this library. > > > > > > Thanks > > If that happens then an extra module might become useful. > > > So does it make sense that I post a new version and let's merge it first. > Then Intel or I can convert IFCVF to use the library? > > Thanks
Generally it's best if we actually have a couple of users before we bother with refactoring - it's hard to predict the future, so we don't really know what kind of refactoring will work for IFCVF ... > > >
