On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:36 AM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> wrote: > On 2/25/2024 4:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:44:41PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: > >> > >> On 2/20/2024 1:09 PM, David Stevens wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:06 PM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 2/19/2024 2:46 PM, David Stevens wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:11 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 09:23:06PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote: > >>>>>>> This commit allows the driver to suspend the device by > >>>>>>> introducing a new status bit SUSPEND in device_status. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This commit also introduce a new feature bit VIRTIO_F_SUSPEND > >>>>>>> which indicating whether the device support SUSPEND. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This SUSPEND bit is transport-independent. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com> > >>>>>> Could we get some kind of dscription how this has taken into > >>>>>> consideration the proposal from David Stevens? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I find it really tiring when there are competing patches with authors > >>>>>> ignoring each other's work and leaving it up to reviewers to > >>>>>> figure out how do the patches compare. > >>>>> This patch looks like it could be used to implement my use case. > >>>>> However, parts of it are a bit vague and imprecise, so it's hard to > >>>>> actually say whether my use case would actually be covered by a > >>>>> specific implementation of this proposal. > >>>> I am on vacation till this Friday. Shall we co-work on this and > >>>> post something new together? > >>> That works for me. > >> Cool! How about two patches in a new series: > >> 1) a general virtio suspending patch describing suspending behaviors for > >> all > >> virtio devices from me, an updating version of this patch > >> 2) a PCI transport suspending patch from you, describing PCI specific > >> behaviors. > >> > >> Dose this sound good to you? > > Well David's patch was more precise than yours, and also better worded. > > So think if there's an agreement you guys would really start with that, > > move the functionality to the status bit and make other changes as needed. > I think we plan to cooperate on a new series including both the status > bit and > PCI transport, collaborations on both of our patches. > > Let's see whether this looks good to David
That works for me. I can incorporate the feedback on both proposals and send out a combined version in the next day or so. Thanks, David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
