Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

James Bottomley
2024-08-07T00:13:26Z

On August 6, 2024 8:06:09 PM EDT, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 08:33:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> > For the specific issue of discussing fwctl, the Plumbers session would
>> > be better because it can likely gather all interested parties.
>>
>> Keep in mind fwctl is already at the end of a long journey of
>> conference discussions and talks spanning 3 years back now. It now
>> represents the generalized consensus between multiple driver
>> maintainers for at least one side of the debate.
>>
>> There was also a fwctl presentation at netdev conf a few weeks ago.
>>
>> In as far as the cross-subsystem NAK, I don't expect more discussion
>> to result in any change to people's opinions. RDMA side will continue
>> to want access to the shared device FW, and netdev side will continue
>> to want to deny access to the shared device FW.
>
>As I mentioned before, this is what I hoped to mediate. The on-list
>discussion has seem to hit a deficit of trust roadblock, not a deficit
>of technical merit.
>
>All I can say is the discussion is worth a try. With respect to a
>precedent for a stalemate moving forward, I point to the MGLRU example.
>That proposal had all of the technical merit on the list, but was not
>making any clear progress to being merged. It was interesting to watch
>that all thaw in real time at LSF/MM (2022) where in person
>collaboration yielded strategy concessions, and mutual understanding
>that email was never going to produce.

Well, plumbers stands ready. We're out of A/V rooms, but if you can do your own A/V with one of the owl cameras we can do a BoF session that can be open to remote participants as well. I'll be happy to do the setup.

Regards,

James

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.