From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:12:31 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH V3 RESEND 1/4] Introduce virito transport virtqueue Message-ID: <20220809050941-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220805095343.486546-1-lingshan.zhu@intel.com> <20220805095343.486546-2-lingshan.zhu@intel.com> <1f82b84c-db9d-69c1-6a41-a4573036ce0c@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1f82b84c-db9d-69c1-6a41-a4573036ce0c@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: "Zhu, Lingshan" Cc: Jason Wang , Cornelia Huck , Stefano Garzarella , Stefan Hajnoczi , nrupal.jani@intel.com, "Uminski, Piotr" , hang.yuan@intel.com, virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:36:43PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: > > > + > > > +A device that offers feature bit VIRTIO_F_TRANSPT_VQ and a transport virtqueue is a management device. > > > +It processes the commands through the transport virtqueue commands. > > I think we need to be verbose here, e.g what did those transport > > virtqueue commands do? What's the relationship between management > > device and managed device? > I will add an overview of the transport virtqueue commands here, and a > description of the relationship in the "managed device" section. Transport is fine but management of devices is clearly something nvidia's patches do. So I think it's best to reuse the concept of device groups for this, from Max's patchset. Let's not replicate that work at least. I promised Max to help a bit with wording so I'll soon send a revision of his patchset, the generic part about device group from which you should be able to reuse. -- MST