> From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 8:42 AM > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:46 PM Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:14 AM > > > > > It's not about how many states in a single state machine, it's about > > > how many state machines that exist for device status. Having more > > > than one creates big obstacles and complexity in the device. You > > > need to define the interaction of each state otherwise you leave undefined > behaviours. > > The device mode has zero relation to the device status. > > You will soon get this issue when you want to do nesting. > I don’t think so. One needs to intercept it when one wants to do trap+emulation which seems to fullfil the nesting use case.
> > It does not mess with it at all. > > In fact the new bits in device status is making it more complex for the > > device > to handle. > > Are you challenging the design of the device status? It's definitely too late > to do > this. > No. I am saying the extending device_status with yet another state is equally complex and its core of the device. > This proposal increases just one bit and that worries you? Or you think one > more state is much more complicated than a new state machine with two > states? It is mode and not state. And two modes are needed for supporting P2P device. When one wants to do with mediation, there also two states are needed. The key is modes are not interacting with the device_status because device_status is just another register of the virtio.
