> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:08 PM > > On 9/12/2023 1:51 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:19 AM > >> > >> On 9/11/2023 7:50 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > >>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > >>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:03 PM By the way, do you see > >>>> anything we need to improve in this series? > >>> Admin commands for passthrough devices of [1] is comprehensive > >>> proposal > >> covering all the aspects. > >>> To me [1] is superset work that covers all needed functionality and > >>> downtime > >> aspects. > >>> I plan to improve [1] with v1 this week by extending device context > >>> and > >> addressing other review comments. > >>> [1] > >>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202309/msg00061 > >>> .h > >>> tml > >> I am not sure, we have discussed a lot about the potential issues in > >> the treads. I guess we should resolve them first. E.g., nested use cases. > > You are using nesting use case as the _only_ use case and attempt to steer > using that. > > Not right. > > > > If you want to discuss, then lets have both the use cases, attempt to > > converge > and if we can its really good. > > If we cannot, both requirements should be handled differently. > Isn't nested a clear use case that should be supported?
Most users who care for running real applications and real performance, have not asked for nesting. It is not mandatory case; it may be required for some users. I don’t know who needs M level nesting and how cpu also support its acceleration etc to run some reasonable workload.
