From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 17:09:39 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] RE: [PATCH v5 0/7] Introduce device group and device management Message-ID: <20220724170744-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220426225824.5918-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220705095514-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220706061051-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: Parav Pandit Cc: Max Gurtovoy , "jasowang@redhat.com" , "virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" , "cohuck@redhat.com" , "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , Oren Duer , Shahaf Shuler , "aadam@redhat.com" , "virtio@lists.oasis-open.org" List-ID: I snippet rest of mail - wasn't sure whether you were waiting for an answer. On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 08:45:26PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > Again I don't know what to do with this. I feel if it's put up for vote in the current > > form it's likely to fail. I propose cutting out as much as possible as a first step, so > > we can make progress. Specifically the MSI-X commands are clearly PF specific > > so there's no concern about VF memory use at all. We can worry about other > > types of command down the road when it becomes relevant. > > Since feature bits proposes are limited to PF, I agree that current short cut is fine to place in 64-127 feature bits. > > When/if similar functionality is needed at scale for the VF or SIOV devices, placing them in 64-127 bits area weight way less for sake of "people familiarity to feature bits". > Do you agree? I think we can all agree that extensions for scalable IOV will need more work if that is what you are saying. -- MST