On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:17 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:38 PM
>
> > > >
> > > Because there is no point of failing it later when actual rw occurs.
> >
> > Even with admin virtqueue, the hypervisor should be ready for any admin
> > command
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:38 PM
> > >
> > Because there is no point of failing it later when actual rw occurs.
>
> Even with admin virtqueue, the hypervisor should be ready for any admin
> command failures somehow.
>
Yes, device failures can happen regardless.
> And
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:04 PM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: virtio-comm...@lists.oasis-open.org > open.org> On Behalf Of Jason Wang
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 12:00 AM
>
> > > This way we just say "make legacy guests work" and
> > > this is the problem of the hardware vendor not
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:52 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2023 11:32 PM
>
> > > Hypervisor flow without involving guest; first sanity round to figure out
> > > things
> > can work:
> >
> > Why is this sanity round a must?
> >
> Because there is no
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:50:24AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > But hardware
> > vendors will do that quickly if they can't sell hardware.
>
> It looks to me that producing a modern only device will be more quick and
> easy?
>
> Thanks
Exactly, that's the point.
--
MST
-
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:59:42AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > - when some weird legacy
> > support requirement surfaces, it will be up to the vendor
> > to fix. HW vendors are also more agressive in deprecating
> > old hardware - they will just stop shipping new
> > hardware when there ar
> From: virtio-comm...@lists.oasis-open.org open.org> On Behalf Of Jason Wang
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 12:00 AM
> > This way we just say "make legacy guests work" and
> > this is the problem of the hardware vendor not ours.
>
> Probably, but we need to try our best to simplify the ven
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:06:43AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:38 PM Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Jason Wang
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:54 AM
> > >
> > > > Hypervisor can trap th
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2023 11:50 PM
> > But hardware
> > vendors will do that quickly if they can't sell hardware.
>
> It looks to me that producing a modern only device will be more quick and
> easy?
AQ based legacy is quick and easy as opposed to other methods captured
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2023 11:32 PM
> > Hypervisor flow without involving guest; first sanity round to figure out
> > things
> can work:
>
> Why is this sanity round a must?
>
Because there is no point of failing it later when actual rw occurs.
> > 1. reset the device
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:22 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > I would like to keep the stateful interactions of 1.x device outside of
> > > 0.9.5.
> >
> > I don't think this is a real problem, but let's see the drawbacks of
> > this
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 8:27 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:11:53PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 3:22 AM
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > I would like to kee
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 1:12 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 3:22 AM
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > I would like to keep the stateful interactions of 1.x device outside of
> > > > 0.9.5.
> > >
> > >
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:17:56PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 4:09 PM
>
> > > > It's not conformant to that statement then :( It's a SHOULD which
> > > > means if you know exactly what you are doing, there could be exceptions.
> > >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 4:09 PM
> > > It's not conformant to that statement then :( It's a SHOULD which
> > > means if you know exactly what you are doing, there could be exceptions.
> > > In this case it's a SHOULD because it was added after 1.0 and we did
> >
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 12:54:53PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 3:15 AM
>
>
> > It's not conformant to that statement then :( It's a SHOULD which means if
> > you
> > know exactly what you are doing, there could be exceptions.
> >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 3:15 AM
> It's not conformant to that statement then :( It's a SHOULD which means if you
> know exactly what you are doing, there could be exceptions.
> In this case it's a SHOULD because it was added after 1.0 and we did not find
> a
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 02:08:07AM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 8:27 PM
> >
> > Interesting this actually violates a spec recommendation:
> >
> > If a device has successfully negotiated a set of features
> > at least once
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 8:27 PM
>
> Interesting this actually violates a spec recommendation:
>
> If a device has successfully negotiated a set of features
> at least once (by accepting the FEATURES_OK \field{device
> status} bit during dev
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:11:53PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 3:22 AM
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > I would like to keep the stateful interactions of 1.x device outside of
> > > > 0.9.5.
> >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 3:22 AM
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > I would like to keep the stateful interactions of 1.x device outside of
> > > 0.9.5.
> >
> > I don't think this is a real problem, but let's see the drawbacks of
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:27:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > I would like to keep the stateful interactions of 1.x device outside of
> > 0.9.5.
>
> I don't think this is a real problem, but let's see the drawbacks of
> this proposal:
>
> 1) non-trivial changes of full new transport alike ABI
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:06:43AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:38 PM Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Jason Wang
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:54 AM
> >
> > > Hypervisor can trap the legacy device configuration space write and
> > > convert it
> > > to cvq
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:26 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:03 PM
>
> > When legacy drivers are doing feature negotiation, the hypervisor must trap
> > and
> > negotiate those two features.
> Device reset to be trapped as well towards 1.x.
It
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:03 PM
> When legacy drivers are doing feature negotiation, the hypervisor must trap
> and
> negotiate those two features.
Device reset to be trapped as well towards 1.x.
And this messes the 1.x flow with FEATURES_OK.
More citations from the
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:58 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: virtio-comm...@lists.oasis-open.org > open.org> On Behalf Of Jason Wang
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:57 PM
>
> > > > In order to converge the discussion, maybe you can explain which one
> > > > of your 3 use cases and why ca
> From: virtio-comm...@lists.oasis-open.org open.org> On Behalf Of Jason Wang
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:57 PM
> > > In order to converge the discussion, maybe you can explain which one
> > > of your 3 use cases and why can't work with _F_LEGACY_HEADER +
> _F_LEGACY_MAC.
> > Hypervisor do
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:53 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:43 PM
>
> > > It is passthrough device, none of the 1.x objects are accessible or
> > > mediated by
> > the hypervisor.
> >
> > Let me quote my reply once again:
> >
> > "
> > Hypervi
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:43 PM
> > It is passthrough device, none of the 1.x objects are accessible or
> > mediated by
> the hypervisor.
>
> Let me quote my reply once again:
>
> "
> Hypervisor just need to prepare
>
> 1) legacy BAR with legacy config and device c
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:29 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:07 PM
>
> > I think not since you fail to explain why this approach is better than
> > simply
> > adding new features like _F_LEGACY_HEADER and _F_LEGACY_MAC.
>
> Please refer back to
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:07 PM
> I think not since you fail to explain why this approach is better than simply
> adding new features like _F_LEGACY_HEADER and _F_LEGACY_MAC.
Please refer back to the requirements of cover letter and multiple past
discussions.
And Mi
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:38 PM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:54 AM
>
> > Hypervisor can trap the legacy device configuration space write and convert
> > it
> > to cvq commands.
> Michael already answered that cvq is not trapped; this is the mai
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:04 PM
> > Moving now to admin will surely have more back-n-forth as it needs to talk
> about PCI part and that PCI part will reside in PCI section.
>
> well the point is that it's *back" not *forth*.
> IOW add the command description
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:00:32PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM
>
> > > > I'll do a proper review after the forum. Generally lots of small
> > > > things. Went looking just to give you a couple of
> > > > examples:
> > > >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM
> > > I'll do a proper review after the forum. Generally lots of small
> > > things. Went looking just to give you a couple of
> > > examples:
> > > too many mentions of VFs and PFs.
> > > text should talk about owner and
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > > > S
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:03 PM
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > >
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > > > S
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise
> > > > for vo
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise for
> > > vote in coming days to be part of 1.3 in few days as we have more than 3
> > weeks to
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise for
> > vote in coming days to be part of 1.3 in few days as we have more than 3
> weeks to sort out non-ABI language part.
>
> I think there's a bunch of work to
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:38:43PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:54 AM
>
> > Hypervisor can trap the legacy device configuration space write and convert
> > it
> > to cvq commands.
> Michael already answered that cvq is not trapped; this i
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:54 AM
> Hypervisor can trap the legacy device configuration space write and convert it
> to cvq commands.
Michael already answered that cvq is not trapped; this is the main design goal
we talked several times that it is passthrough device.
S
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:27:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:12:59PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > Rolling v4 now.
> >
> > Great thanks! I think the result will be in a good shape from
> > the ABI point
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:54:22PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:06 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Jason Wang
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:27 PM
> > >
> > > I can't say I like this. I prefer to do meditation on top of a modern
> > > device with
> >
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:06 AM Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:27 PM
> >
> > I can't say I like this. I prefer to do meditation on top of a modern
> > device with
> > some lightweight features like _F_LEAGCY_HEADER. I don't see any advantages
>
> From: Jason Wang
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:27 PM
>
> I can't say I like this. I prefer to do meditation on top of a modern device
> with
> some lightweight features like _F_LEAGCY_HEADER. I don't see any advantages
> of a new legacy ABI over _F_LEGACY_HEADER. I don't want to repeat bu
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:12:59PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > Rolling v4 now.
>
> Great thanks! I think the result will be in a good shape from
> the ABI point of view. Good job!
>
> I think so far Jason was the only one with signifi
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:56 AM
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:12:59PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > Rolling v4 now.
>
> Great thanks! I think the result will be in a good shape from the ABI point of
> view. Good job!
>
Thanks.
> I think so far Jason was the
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:12:59PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Rolling v4 now.
Great thanks! I think the result will be in a good shape from
the ABI point of view. Good job!
I think so far Jason was the only one with significant comments
on the series so let's see what he says.
>From my persona
> From: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org On
> Behalf Of Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 5:57 PM
> > I would surely do that for all future devices which will be self-contained.
> > The cost of doing that for legacy is not worth the efforts.
> > And since we agree that read/write
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 04:04:57PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:50 AM
>
> > > Can you explain the motivation of : why querying notification offset via
> > > the
> > group member PF is a problem, if there is."
> >
> > I tried already
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:50 AM
> > Can you explain the motivation of : why querying notification offset via the
> group member PF is a problem, if there is."
>
> I tried already, I can repeat if you like:
>
> So, I am thinking of a model of using a tiny stub d
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 01:27:04PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 1:52 AM
>
> [..]
> > > > E.g. with 1.x using VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA - probably not.
> > > >
> > > Not really because legacy doesn't have that feature.
> > > Legacy noti
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 1:52 AM
[..]
> > > E.g. with 1.x using VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA - probably not.
> > >
> > Not really because legacy doesn't have that feature.
> > Legacy notifications are subset of 1.x feature.
> > This was also discussed.
>
> So for l
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:40:54PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:49 PM
>
> > > Legacy can utilize the 1.x hw plumbing without building new hypothetical
> > > PF
> > hardware.
> >
> > Maybe.
> > Whether 1.x BAR can be reused for le
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:49 PM
> > Legacy can utilize the 1.x hw plumbing without building new hypothetical PF
> hardware.
>
> Maybe.
> Whether 1.x BAR can be reused for legacy would depend on a bunch of factors.
> E.g. with 1.x using VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DAT
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:07:27PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:54 AM
>
> > > Each VF has its own available buffer notification in hardware like 1.x.
> > > We do not want to duplicate (and add) such functionality on the PF BAR
> >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:54 AM
> > Each VF has its own available buffer notification in hardware like 1.x.
> > We do not want to duplicate (and add) such functionality on the PF BAR
> hardware when it already exists on the VF.
>
> yes but here we are talking
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:48:59PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:23 AM
>
> > > > > > E.g. the notification can include VF# + VQ#?
> > > > > > At least as an option?
> > > > > No. we discussed this before to have each device on its
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:23 AM
> > > > > E.g. the notification can include VF# + VQ#?
> > > > > At least as an option?
> > > > No. we discussed this before to have each device on its own BAR.
> > > > Hence no
> > > VF# in the doorbell.
>
> doorbell == availab
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:10:16PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:56 AM
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 01:41:54PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:34 AM
> > >
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:56 AM
>
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 01:41:54PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:34 AM
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:36:01PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > Th
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 01:41:54PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:34 AM
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:36:01PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > This short series introduces legacy registers access commands for the
> > > owner gro
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:34 AM
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:36:01PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > This short series introduces legacy registers access commands for the
> > owner group member PCI PF to access the legacy registers of the member VFs.
>
> Note t
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:36:01PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> This short series introduces legacy registers access commands for the owner
> group member PCI PF to access the legacy registers of the member VFs.
Note that some work will be needed here to fix up grammar and spelling
mistakes.
> If
66 matches
Mail list logo
