On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:56:46 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2019/11/6 上午1:58, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:32:34 +0800 > > Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi all: > >> > >> There are hardwares that can do virtio datapath offloading while > >> having its own control path. This path tries to implement a mdev based > >> unified API to support using kernel virtio driver to drive those > >> devices. This is done by introducing a new mdev transport for virtio > >> (virtio_mdev) and register itself as a new kind of mdev driver. Then > >> it provides a unified way for kernel virtio driver to talk with mdev > >> device implementation. > >> > >> Though the series only contains kernel driver support, the goal is to > >> make the transport generic enough to support userspace drivers. This > >> means vhost-mdev[1] could be built on top as well by resuing the > >> transport. > >> > >> A sample driver is also implemented which simulate a virito-net > >> loopback ethernet device on top of vringh + workqueue. This could be > >> used as a reference implementation for real hardware driver. > >> > >> Also a real ICF VF driver was also posted here[2] which is a good > >> reference for vendors who is interested in their own virtio datapath > >> offloading product. > >> > >> Consider mdev framework only support VFIO device and driver right now, > >> this series also extend it to support other types. This is done > >> through introducing class id to the device and pairing it with > >> id_talbe claimed by the driver. On top, this seris also decouple > >> device specific parents ops out of the common ones. > >> > >> Pktgen test was done with virito-net + mvnet loop back device. > >> > >> Please review. > >> > >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/31/440 > >> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/15/1226 > >> > >> Changes from V7: > >> - drop {set|get}_mdev_features for virtio > >> - typo and comment style fixes > > > > Seems we're nearly there, all the remaining comments are relatively > > superficial, though I would appreciate a v9 addressing them as well as > > the checkpatch warnings: > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/68977/ > > > Will do. > > Btw, do you plan to merge vhost-mdev patch on top? Or you prefer it to > go through Michael's vhost tree? I can include it if you wish. The mdev changes are isolated enough in that patch that I wouldn't presume it, but clearly it would require less merge coordination to drop it in my tree. Let me know. Thanks, Alex
