> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 2:16 AM > To: Liang, Cunming <cunming.li...@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W > <xiao.w.w...@intel.com>; m...@redhat.com; alex.william...@redhat.com > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Bie, Tiwei <tiwei....@intel.com>; Ye, Xiaolong > <xiaolong...@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.w...@intel.com>; Daly, Dan > <dan.d...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] vhost-vfio: introduce mdev based HW vhost backend > > > On 2018/11/7 下午11:08, Liang, Cunming wrote: > >>>> believe. > >>> [LC] Agreed, so it reuses CMD defined by vhost-kernel ioctl. But > >>> VFIO provides > >> device specific things (e.g. DMAR, INTR and etc.) which is the extra > >> APIs being introduced by this transport. > >> > >> > >> I'm not quite sure I understand here. I think having vhost-kernel > >> compatible ioctl does not conflict of using VFIO ioctl like DMA or INTR? > >> > >> Btw, VFIO DMA ioctl is even not a must from my point of view, > >> vhost-mdev can forward the mem table information to device driver and > >> let it call DMA API to map/umap pages. > > [LC] If not regarding vhost-mdev as a device, then forward mem table won't > > be a > concern. > > If introducing a new mdev bus driver (vhost-mdev) which allows mdev > > instance to > be a new type of provider for vhost-kernel. It becomes a pretty good > alternative to > fully leverage vhost-kernel ioctl. > > I'm not sure it's the same view as yours when you says reusing vhost-kernel > > ioctl. > > > > Yes it is. [LC] It sounds a pretty good idea to me. Let us spend some time to figure out the next level detail, and sync-up further plan in community call. :)
> > Thanks
