On 24/09/2018 07:45, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:32:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> From: Pankaj Gupta <pagu...@redhat.com>
>>
>> This is the current protoype of virtio-pmem. Support will require
>> machine changes for the architectures that will support it, so it will
>> not yet be compiled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagu...@redhat.com>
>> [ MemoryDevice/MemoryRegion changes, cleanups, addr property "memaddr",
>> split up patches ]
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>
> Seems generally sane. Is there a (craft?) virtio-pmem spec around to
> see what this is actually trying to implement?
I am not aware of any. The first goal is to get something implemented
that works and doesn't break important concepts. E.g. hotplugging memory
devices was one of these concepts that Igor saw as a potential problem
for getting virtio-pmem upstream.
But maybe Pankaj already has some draft version of a spec lying around.
>
> And one nit..
>
> [snip]
>> +static int worker_cb(void *opaque)
>> +{
>> + VirtIODeviceRequest *req = opaque;
>> + int err = 0;
>> +
>> + printf("\n performing flush ...");
>
> .. I assume the plan is to remove these debugging prints..
>
Yes, these are still in place for verifying that the machinery works.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
