On Tue, 2023-09-26 at 12:44 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:02 PM Dragos Tatulea <dtatu...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > This patch adapts the mr creation/deletion code to be able to work with > > any given mr struct pointer. All the APIs are adapted to take an extra > > parameter for the mr. > > > > mlx5_vdpa_create/delete_mr doesn't need a ASID parameter anymore. The > > check is done in the caller instead (mlx5_set_map). > > > > This change is needed for a followup patch which will introduce an > > additional mr for the vq descriptor data. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatu...@nvidia.com> > > --- > > Thinking of this decoupling I think I have a question. > > We advertise 2 address spaces and 2 groups. So we actually don't know > for example which address spaces will be used by dvq. > > And actually we allow the user space to do something like > > set_group_asid(dvq_group, 0) > set_map(0) > set_group_asid(dvq_group, 1) > set_map(1) > > I wonder if the decoupling like this patch can work and why. > This scenario could indeed work. Especially if you look at the 13'th patch [0] where hw support is added. Are you wondering if this should work at all or if it should be blocked?
> It looks to me the most easy way is to let each AS be backed by an MR. > Then we don't even need to care about the dvq, cvq. That's what this patch series dowes. Thanks, Dragos [0]https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/20230912130132.561193-14-dtatu...@nvidia.com/T/#u _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
