On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:16:28 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:01:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/8/18 下午4:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:24:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2020/8/14 下午1:16, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:24:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2020/8/10 下午3:46, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > we actually can also retrieve the same information through sysfs, .e.g > > > > |- [path to device] > > |--- migration > > | |--- self > > | | |---device_api > > | | |---mdev_type > > | | |---software_version > > | | |---device_id > > | | |---aggregator > > | |--- compatible > > | | |---device_api > > | | |---mdev_type > > | | |---software_version > > | | |---device_id > > | | |---aggregator > > > > > > Yes but: > > > > - You need one file per attribute (one syscall for one attribute) > > - Attribute is coupled with kobject Is that really that bad? You have the device with an embedded kobject anyway, and you can just put things into an attribute group? [Also, I think that self/compatible split in the example makes things needlessly complex. Shouldn't semantic versioning and matching already cover nearly everything? I would expect very few cases that are more complex than that. Maybe the aggregation stuff, but I don't think we need that self/compatible split for that, either.] > > > > All of above seems unnecessary. > > > > Another point, as we discussed in another thread, it's really hard to make > > sure the above API work for all types of devices and frameworks. So having a > > vendor specific API looks much better. > > > > From the POV of userspace mgmt apps doing device compat checking / migration, > > we certainly do NOT want to use different vendor specific APIs. We want to > > have an API that can be used / controlled in a standard manner across vendors. > > > > Yes, but it could be hard. E.g vDPA will chose to use devlink (there's a > > long debate on sysfs vs devlink). So if we go with sysfs, at least two > > APIs needs to be supported ... > > NB, I was not questioning devlink vs sysfs directly. If devlink is related > to netlink, I can't say I'm enthusiastic as IMKE sysfs is easier to deal > with. I don't know enough about devlink to have much of an opinion though. > The key point was that I don't want the userspace APIs we need to deal with > to be vendor specific. >From what I've seen of devlink, it seems quite nice; but I understand why sysfs might be easier to deal with (especially as there's likely already a lot of code using it.) I understand that some users would like devlink because it is already widely used for network drivers (and some others), but I don't think the majority of devices used with vfio are network (although certainly a lot of them are.) > > What I care about is that we have a *standard* userspace API for performing > device compatibility checking / state migration, for use by QEMU/libvirt/ > OpenStack, such that we can write code without countless vendor specific > code paths. > > If there is vendor specific stuff on the side, that's fine as we can ignore > that, but the core functionality for device compat / migration needs to be > standardized. To summarize: - choose one of sysfs or devlink - have a common interface, with a standardized way to add vendor-specific attributes ?
