> From: Neo Jia [mailto:cjia@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:17 PM > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:55:39PM +0800, Jike Song wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > In order to have a clear understanding about the VFIO mdev upstreaming > > status, I'd like to summarize it. Please share your opinions on this, > > and correct my misunderstandings. > > > > The whole vfio mdev series can be logically divided into several parts, > > they work together to provide the mdev support. > > Hi Jike, > > Thanks for summarizing this, but I will defer to Kirti to comment on the actual > upstream status of her patches, couples things to note though: > > 1) iommu type1 patches have been extensively reviewed by Alex already and we > have one action item left to implement which is already queued up in v8 patchset. > > 2) regarding the sysfs interface and libvirt discussion, I would like to hear > what kind of attributes Intel folks are having so far as Daniel is > asking about adding a class "gpu" which will pull several attributes as mandatory. > I have replied to Daniel that Intel doesn't plan to support those attributes. We think default mdev attributes are enough for our requirements. You may put them into 'description' attribute for informative purpose... If both sides agree this assumption, along with Kirti's reply that you don't require grouping mdev any more, it'd be more promising of pushing whole mdev bits to upstream then. :-) Thanks Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
