On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:11:50PM -0400, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > On 5/10/2023 2:04 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > I thought so too originally. Unfortunately I now think that no, legacy > > > > is not > > > > going to be a byproduct of transport virtqueue for modern - > > > > it is different enough that it needs dedicated commands. > > > > > > If you mean the transport virtqueue, I think some dedicated commands > > > for legacy are needed. Then it would be a transport that supports > > > transitional devices. It would be much better than having commands for > > > a partial transport like this patch did. > > > > OK I am beginning to get what you are saying. So your criticism is > > this: what if device supports vq transport for modern, and we want to > > build a transitional device on top. how will that look. yes? > > A reasonable thing to include at least in the commit log. Parav? > > > I am still trying to understand what is "vq transport for modern"? > Do you mean transporting currently defined config space access over vq? > If so, is this VQ belong to the guest or hypervisor?
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220826100034.200432-2-lingshan.zhu%40intel.com/t.mbox.gz -- MST --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
