> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:56 PM > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:51:05PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:45 PM > > > > > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 03:49:44PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > All legacy interface via AQ. > > > > All modern interface access via PCI or its own transport between > > > > driver and > > > device. > > > > > > I am wondering however about the hypervisor notifications. > > > Generally these are the most problematic aspect here I feel. For > > > example, how does it interact with VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA? And > > > generally, having both guest and host be allowed to access device's BAR > seems problematic. > > > Can we reserve a PF BAR region for these things or is that too expensive? > > > > VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA is not present for the legacy. > > it is not but it just might be required, or it won't be there. > How can it be required if it not part of it? I likely didn't follow your question/comment, can you please explain.
> > For modern device, guest driver will access the device own BAR directly with > its own config_data anyway. > > Should we reserve a region in the PF BAR for SF/SIOV device?, should device > report which BAR/area to use for the given SF/SIOV device? > > May be yes, those are different discussions with tradeoff to consider during > SIOV discussions. It is not related to VFs. > > For SIOV it's a given. But we can do this for SRIOV: reserve a PF region per > VF. Each VF has its own BAR area for driver notifications. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
