On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:30:28PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:18 AM > > > > Why migration generate too many spurious interrupts? > > > > Because, you might want to migrate from hardware with to hardware without > > coalescing features. So you just tell guest "sure I will coalesce" but in > > fact send > > interrupts normally. > > For the hardware that has fake coalescing, HV wouldn't know it anyway without > doing pre verification. > And HV may not migrate in such case for best experience. > HV may choose to migrate with low accuracy as you say, which is fine. > > But the spec guidance for the device implementations is to promote some > reasonable level of accuracy. > Hard to define in words here. > Best effort is wide spectrum of range. :) > > Typically, we say in the spec as SHOULD. > So, lets skip the best-effort wording and stick to SHOULD part like rest of > the spec.
I think the point of best-effort is that driver must handle interrupts that arrive earlier. This is how we used it elsewhere. What else does it include in your opinion that we absolutely must exclude? I feel it's a good fit for a non-conformance section which is by nature a bit informal. For a conformance section SHOULD is indeed a good fit. -- MST --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
