> From: Neo Jia [mailto:c...@nvidia.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:10 PM > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:52:53AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankh...@nvidia.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:25 PM > > > > > > On 2/20/2019 3:52 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > * Kirti Wankhede (kwankh...@nvidia.com) wrote: > > > >> Add migration support for VFIO device > > > > > > > > Hi Kirti, > > > > Can you explain how this compares and works with Yan Zhao's > > > > set? > > > > > > This patch set is incremental version of my previous patch set: > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1000719/ > > > This takes care of the feedbacks received on previous version. > > > > > > This patch set is different than Yan Zhao's set. > > > > > > > I can help give some background about Yan's work: > > > > There was a big gap between Kirti's last version and the overall review > > comments, especially this one: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg576652.html > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > Then there was no reply from Kirti whether she agreed with the comments > > and was working on a new version. > > Sorry, we should ack on those comments when we have received them last > time. > > > > > Then we think we should jump in to keep the ball moving, based on > > a fresh implementation according to recommended direction, i.e. focusing > > on device state management instead of sticking to migration flow in kernel > > API design. > > > > and also more importantly we provided kernel side implementation based > > on Intel GVT-g to give the whole picture of both user/kernel side changes. > > That should give people a better understanding of how those new APIs > > are expected to be used by Qemu, and to be implemented by vendor driver. > > > > That is why Yan just shared her work. > > Really glad to see the v2 version works for you guys, appreciate for the > driver > side changes. > > > > > Now it's great to see that Kirti is still actively working on this effort > > and is > > also moving toward the right direction. Let's have a close look at two > > implementations and then choose a cleaner one as base for future > > enhancements. :-) > > Yes, the v3 has addressed all the comments / concerns raised in the v2, I > think > we should take a look and keep moving. > > Just a quick thought - would be possible / better to have Kirti focus on the > QEMU > patches and Yan take care GVT-g kernel driver side changes? This will give us > the best testing coverage. Hope I don't step on anybody's toes here. ;-) >
That is one option to be considered. For now let's focus on closing kernel interface definition. I saw Alex given lots of comments on both series. Hope we can discuss and converge on that part soon, before moving to next version. :-) Thanks Kevin
