Hi On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:30 AM Wei Wang <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2016 09:05 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:13 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.w...@intel.com > > <mailto:wei.w.w...@intel.com>> wrote: > > My question is not about the support of various kind of devices (that > > is clearly a worthy goal to me) but to have support simultaneously of > > several frontend/provider devices on the same vhost-pci device: is > > this required or necessary? I think it would simplify things if it was > > 1-1 instead, I would like to understand why you propose a different > > design. > > It is not required, but necessary, I think. As mentioned above, those > consumer-side functionalities basically access the same provider VM's > memory, so I think one vhost-pci device is enough to hold that memory. > When it comes to the consumer guest kernel, we only need to ioremap that > memory once. Also, a pair of controlq-s is enough to handle the control > path messages between all those functionalities and the QEMU. I think > the design also looks compact in this way. what do you think? > > If it's not required, I would propose to stick to a 1-1 design for now. (1-n support could be added later, even if it means a new device kind) Michael, what do you think? -- Marc-André Lureau
