On 09/07/2016 11:38 AM, Neo Jia wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:22:26AM +0800, Jike Song wrote: >> On 09/02/2016 11:03 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:16:08 +0800 >>> Jike Song <jike.s...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This patchset is based on NVidia's "Add Mediated device support" series, >>>> version 6: >>>> >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg136472.html >>> >>> >>> Hi Jike, >>> >>> I'm thrilled by your active participation here, but I'm confused which >>> versions I should be reviewing and where the primary development is >>> going. Kirti sent v7 a week ago, so I would have expected a revision >>> based on that rather than a re-write based on v6 plus incorporation of a >>> few of Kirti's patches directly. >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> [Sorry! replied this on Monday but it was silently dropped by the our >> firewall] >> >> >> >> The v1 of this patchset was send as incremental ones, basing on Nvidia's v6, >> to >> demonstrate how is it possible and beneficial to: >> >> 1, Introduce an independent device between physical and mdev; >> 2, Simplify vfio-mdev and make it the most flexible for vendor drivers; >> >> Unfortunately neither was understood or adopted in v7: >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg137081.html >> >> So here came the v2, as a standalone series, to give a whole and straight >> demonstration. The reason of still basing on v6: >> >> - Addressed all v6 comments (except the iommu part); >> - There is no comments yet for v7 (except the sysfs ones); >> >> >> >>> I liked the last version of these >>> changes a lot, but we need to figure out how to combine development >>> because we do not have infinite cycles for review available :-\ Thanks! >> >> Fully understand. >> >> Here is the dilemma: v6 is an obsolete version to work upon, v7 is still not >> at the direction we prefer. > > Hi Jike, > > I wish I could meet you in person in KVM forum couple weeks ago so we can > have a > better discussion.
I wish I could have that opportunity, too! > We are trying our best to accommodate almost all requirements / comments from > use cases and code reviews while keeping little (or none) architectural > changes > between revisions. Yes I saw that, there was little architectural change from v6 to v7, that's what I will argue for :) >> We would be highly glad and thankful if Neo/Kirti >> would adopt the code in their next version, which will certainly form a >> more simple and consolidated base for future co-development; otherwise >> and we could at least discuss the concerns, in case of any. >> > > As I have said in my previous response to you, if you have any questions about > adopting the framework that we have developed, you are very welcome to > comment/speak out on the code review thread like others. And if it is > reasonable > request and won't break other vendors' use case, we will adopt it (one example > is the online file and removing the mdev pci dependency). > Not limited to having questions about adoption, right? :) We do think the framework itself had too much unnecessary logic and imposed limitations to vendor drivers, also it's clearly possible to be simplified. > Just some update for you regarding the v7 patches, currently we are very > actively trying to lock down the sysfs and management interfaces discussion. > > So, if you would like to make the upstream happen sooner, please join us in > the > v7 and following patch discussion instead of rewriting them. > So as you said, I would comment on the v7 series to propose both architectural and implementation changes, hoping this will help more. -- Thanks, Jike
