On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:43:48 +0530 Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 7:22 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Kirti Wankhede [mailto:kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 4:45 AM > >>>> +* mdev_supported_types: > >>>> + List of current supported mediated device types and its details are added > >>>> +in this directory in following format: > >>>> + > >>>> +|- <parent phy device> > >>>> +|--- Vendor-specific-attributes [optional] > >>>> +|--- mdev_supported_types > >>>> +| |--- <type id> > >>>> +| | |--- create > >>>> +| | |--- name > >>>> +| | |--- available_instances > >>>> +| | |--- description /class > >>>> +| | |--- [devices] > >>>> +| |--- <type id> > >>>> +| | |--- create > >>>> +| | |--- name > >>>> +| | |--- available_instances > >>>> +| | |--- description /class > >>>> +| | |--- [devices] > >>>> +| |--- <type id> > >>>> +| |--- create > >>>> +| |--- name > >>>> +| |--- available_instances > >>>> +| |--- description /class > >>>> +| |--- [devices] > >>>> + > >>>> +[TBD : description or class is yet to be decided. This will change.] > >>> > >>> I thought that in previous discussions we had agreed to drop > >>> the <type id> concept and use the name as the unique identifier. > >>> When reporting these types in libvirt we won't want to report > >>> the type id values - we'll want the name strings to be unique. > >>> > >> > >> The 'name' might not be unique but type_id will be. For example that Neo > >> pointed out in earlier discussion, virtual devices can come from two > >> different physical devices, end user would be presented with what they > >> had selected but there will be internal implementation differences. In > >> that case 'type_id' will be unique. > >> > > > > Hi, Kirti, my understanding is that Neo agreed to use an unique type > > string (if you still called it <type id>), and then no need of additional > > 'name' field which can be put inside 'description' field. See below quote: > > > > We had internal discussions about this within NVIDIA and found that > 'name' might not be unique where as 'type_id' would be unique. I'm > refering to Neo's mail after that, where Neo do pointed that out. > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg07714.html Everyone not privy to those internal discussions, including me, seems to think we dropped type_id and that if a vendor does not have a stable name, they can compose some sort of stable type description based on the name+id, or even vendor+id, ex. NVIDIA-11. So please share why we haven't managed to kill off type_id yet. No matter what internal representation each vendor driver has of "type_id" it seems possible for it to come up with stable string to define a given configuration. Thanks, Alex -- 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
