[Intel-gfx] [PATCH V10 6/6] docs: sample driver to demonstrate how to implement virtio-mdev framework

[Jason Wang]

On 2019/11/7 下午9:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:32:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/11/7 下午9:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:43:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/11/7 下午7:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:18:45PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019/11/7 下午5:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:35:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> This sample driver creates mdev device that simulate virtio net device
>>>>>>>> over virtio mdev transport. The device is implemented through vringh
>>>>>>>> and workqueue. A device specific dma ops is to make sure HVA is used
>>>>>>>> directly as the IOVA. This should be sufficient for kernel virtio
>>>>>>>> driver to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only 'virtio' type is supported right now. I plan to add 'vhost' type
>>>>>>>> on top which requires some virtual IOMMU implemented in this sample
>>>>>>>> driver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Cornelia Huck<cohuck at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> I'd prefer it that we call this something else, e.g.
>>>>>>> mvnet-loopback. Just so people don't expect a fully
>>>>>>> functional device somehow. Can be renamed when applying?
>>>>>> Actually, I plan to extend it as another standard network interface for
>>>>>> kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device.
>>>>>> Does this sounds good to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason
>>>>> to rename the driver at that point right?
>>>>> Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver
>>>>> and get a loopback instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or did I miss something?
>>>> My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be
>>>> used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to
>>>> driver/virtio.
>>>>
>>>> But if you insist, I can post a V11.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> this can be a patch on top.
>> Then maybe it's better just extend it to work as a normal networking device
>> on top?
>>
>> Thanks
> That would be a substantial change. Maybe drop 6/6 for now until
> we have a better handle on this?
>

Ok, consider the change should be small, I will post V11 where I can fix 
the typos spotted.

Thanks