Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V10 6/6] docs: sample driver to demonstrate how to implement virtio-mdev framework | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +0800 |
| |
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@redhat.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@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
| |