On 09/08/2016 12:56 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 14:42:58 +0800 > Jike Song <jike.s...@intel.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Please do, I definitely like where you're heading and I want to see > Kirti and Neo include your ideas. The challenge is to try to focus our > efforts into a single development stream. Please continue to comment > and even submit patches, but let's consider NVIDIA's latest patches to > be the main development stream and request changes against that. As > you would do upstream, propose changes in small increments where we can > evaluate each step. It's very difficult for Neo and Kirti to > incorporate bulk rewrites. Thanks, >
Thanks - We'll try our best to meet that! -- Thanks, Jike
