Hi Jason, > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 10:56 AM > [...] > If you(Intel) don't have plan to do vDPA, you should not prevent other vendors > from implementing PASID capable hardware through non-VFIO subsystem/uAPI > on top of your SIOV architecture. Isn't it?
yes, that's true. > So if Intel has the willing to collaborate on the POC, I'd happy to help. E.g > it's not > hard to have a PASID capable virtio device through qemu, and we can start from > there. actually, I'm already doing a poc to move the PASID allocation/free interface out of VFIO. So that other users could use it as well. I think this is also what you replied previously. :-) I'll send out when it's ready and seek for your help on mature it. does it sound good to you? Regards, Yi Liu > > Thanks > > > > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
