On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 3:36 AM Parav Pandit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Jason Wang <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:29 PM > > > > Well, it's an example of how vDPA is implemented. I think we agree that for > > vDPA, vendors have the flexibility to implement their perferrable datapath. > > > Yes for the vdpa level and for the virtio level. > > > > > > > I remember few months back, you acked in the weekly meeting that TC has > > approved the AQ direction. > > > And we are still in this circle of debating the AQ. > > > > I think not. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the proposal here is > > for vDPA, and hope it can provide forward compatibility to virtio. So in the > > context of vDPA, admin virtqueue is not a must. > In context of vdpa over virtio, an efficient transport interface is needed. > If AQ is not much any other interface such as hundreds to thousands of > registers is not must either. > > AQ is one interface proposed with multiple benefits. > I haven’t seen any other alternatives that delivers all the benefits. > Only one I have seen is synchronous config registers. > > If you let vendors progress, handful of sensible interfaces can exist, each > with different characteristics. > How would we proceed from here?
I'm pretty fine with having admin virtqueue in the virtio spec. If you remember, I've even submitted a proposal to use admin virtqueue as a transport last year. Let's just proceed in the virtio-dev list. Thanks _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
