On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:01:20AM -0400, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > > >> We need a device ID for virtio-pmem devices. As 24 is already > > >> requested by virtio-mem, so requesting next available(25) > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <[email protected]> > > >> --- > > >> content.tex | 2 ++ > > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > virtio-mem is designed for hotplug. Does it make sense to merge > > > virtio-pmem into virtio-mem since you'll need hotplug too? > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > Initially I had (and even proposed during some discussion) the same > > idea. But it turns out that they are fundamentally different. > > > > They are memory devices, yes, but that's the point where they stop being > > similar. > > > > While virtio-pmem wants to expose a memory region as persistent memory > > and adding a flushing interface, virtio-mem is all about managing > > (add/remove/online/offline) sub-chunks and applying protection > > mechanisms on the hypervisor side to make sure unplugged memory cannot > > (or only in some limited sense) be accessed. > > Yes, we discussed possibility of merging both these devices in the past. > As rightly explained by David, both these devices solving different problems. > Also, their architectures are different, common part is both use memory > device > & VIRTIO. > > Also, as we plan to add more features specific to each virtio{mem/pmem}, it > will be more confusing and difficult to maintain. I think it makes more sense > to > keep both these devices separate.
Okay. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
