Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] vGPU Core driver

[Jike Song <jike.song@intel.com>]

On 03/01/2016 07:17 AM, Neo Jia wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:39:02AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Kirti Wankhede
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:24 AM
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>
>>
>> Hi, Kirti/Neo,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for you updated version. Having not looked into detail
>> code, first come with some high level comments.
>>
>> First, in a glimpse the majority of the code (possibly >95%) is device
>> agnostic, though we call it vgpu today. Just thinking about the
>> extensibility and usability of this framework, would it be better to 
>> name it in a way that any other type of I/O device can be fit into 
>> this framework? I don't have a good idea of the name now, but 
>> a simple idea is to replace vgpu with vdev (vdev-core, vfio-vdev,
>> vfio-iommu-type1-vdev, etc.), and then underlying GPU drivers are
>> just one category of users of this general vdev framework. In the
>> future it's easily extended to support other I/O virtualization based 
>> on similar vgpu concept;
>>
>> Second, are these 3 patches already working with nvidia device,
>> or are they just conceptual implementation w/o completing actual
>> test yet? We'll start moving our implementation toward this direction
>> too, so would be good to know the current status and how we can
>> further cooperate to move forward. Based on that we can start 
>> giving more comments on next level detail.
>>
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Yes, we do have an engineering prototype up and running with this set of kernel
> patches we have posted.
> 

Good to know that :)

> Please let us know if you have any questions while integrating your vgpu solution
> within this framework.

Thanks for your work, we are evaluating the integrate of the framework
with our vgpu implementation, will make/propose changes to this.

> 
> Thanks,
> Neo
> 
--
Thanks,
Jike