> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:33 AM > To: Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com>; Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>; epere...@redhat.com; > coh...@redhat.com; stefa...@redhat.com; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- > open.org; virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 5/5] virtio-pci: implement > VIRTIO_F_QUEUE_STATE > > > > On 9/13/2023 10:23 AM, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:45 PM > >>> Do you find the administration commands we proposed in [1] useful > >>> for > >> nested case? > >>> If not, both will likely diverge. > >> Not till now. > > I don’t think you reviewed [1] enough. > > Following functionality that you want to post in v1 is already covered. > > Why cannot you use it from [1]? > > > > a. Dirty page tracking (write recording in [1]), b. device > > suspend/resume (mode setting) c. inflight descriptors (device context) > > > > [1] > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202309/msg00061.h > > tml > you cut off the message, I don't know which conversation you are replying to. > > But anyway, as pointed out many times, we are implementing basic facilities.
I asked you what parts of the series [1] can be used by you for inflight tracking, dirty tracking, suspend/resume. You replied, none is useful. And after that you said you plan to send v2 that does dirty page tracking, inflight tracking. So I asked why you cannot use [1] that covers things that you plan to send in future? [1] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202309/msg00061.html Hope this clarifies.
