Thanks for chiming in! On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 01:08:28PM GMT, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > higher level comment, so CCing also Dominik: > > Is pve-common, and possibly even SysFSTools the right place for this?
To be honest, that was kinda my thought to when I started implementing this, but didn't know quite where to put it otherwise - other than a completely new package and whether that is worth the additional effort. So no, not really. > [..] > from recent development it seems like placing such things into a more > specific package, and probably also (binary) package might be better. > > So while you certainly do not need to fix all of that just to get your > changes here in, it would be OTOH great if we could not make this tech > debt worse; so lets create a new package and possibly also finer-grained > modules for this. If that's the way we want to go tho - I'd be happy to put something concrete together to get started. This change is be a good starting point for all of this anyway, I think. And if we split it out anyway, I would really go the way of directly using libnvml to retrieve all the information. It is not that much more effort overall and since it being a binary package is fine too, seems fitting. > > The hard thing is to carve out what belongs together, and lets not be > strictly limited by existing module layout, method from those can be > split and merged. > > Some rough/unfinished ideas/proposal from top of my head: > > - possible package names: > - libpve-device-common (or host-device / hw-device as slight alternations) `libpve-host-device(-common)` sounds pretty good IMO; in that it is quite distinctive about what devices the package actually works with. `device` alone would be a bit ambiguous, in my mind. In the long-term, I guess the mdev-related stuff could be moved there too, being quite a good fit for that too. > - libpve-sysfs-common (if sysfs is really only what this does, which then > should not need any external tools or compiled programs) > - libpve-hw-passthrough-common > > - modules: The basename might depend a bit on the package named chosen, could > be e.g. "PVE::Device" or "PVE::SysFS" > - $basename::USB > - $basename::PCI > - $basename::PCI::NVIDIA .. and splitting up such things into vendor specific modules further down is a good idea too. Keeps things together that should be. > > In general, it can be also fine to have a very generic (micro) package with > just sysfs helpers, or keep that in existing pve-common, and then depend > on that in a more specific package that provides passthrough related stuff > on top of that, mixing sysfs query/writing with some potential calling of > external tools. > > As said, the direction should be that, and great if some parts of pve-common > can be improved "for free" w.r.t. not being huge modules in a huge package, > but there's no need to rework all of pve-common now already just for this. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
