On 9/12/2023 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
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.
Nested is a common use case and it is mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
