> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 4:58 PM
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:47:04PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:39 AM
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 01:28:40PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > This is not the objective to transport all PCI virtio fields over AQ.
> > > > Transport VQ commands proposal commands and commands in this
> > > > proposal
> > > are just fine the way there without quoting it as "transport".
> > >
> > > I mean, it's a transport in a sense of where it will reside in e.g.
> > > linux virtio stack - below virtio core.
> > > We don't save much code there by reusing the same register layout of
> > > legacy pci.
> > > But let's at least make this feature complete, and then we'll see
> > > whether it is cleaner to reuse legacy layout or build a new one.
> >
> > I don't follow your comment about "this feature complete".
> > When you say _this_, it means the feature proposed in this patch of
> supporting legacy over PCI VFs?
> >
> > If so, anything missing in this proposal?
>
> I think I commented at least on what I see as missing is first of all a need
> to
> support INT#x emulation since level interrupts are I think not supported for
> VFs.
> right?
I don't see it mandatory as I responded in [1].
I didn't see your response on [1].
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/virtio-comment/[email protected]/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
