On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:51:46AM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote: > > If they didn't plan to use it, bit of a strawman argument, right? > > This doesn't need to continue like the debates :-) Pun intended :-) > > I don't think it makes any sense to have an abstract strawman argument > design discussion. Yi is looking into for pasid management alone. Rest > of the IOMMU related topics should wait until we have another > *real* use requiring consolidation. Actually I'm really annoyed right now that the other Intel team wasted quiet a lot of the rest of our time on arguing about vDPA and vfio with no actual interest in this technology. So you'll excuse me if I'm not particularly enamored with this discussion right now. > Contrary to your argument, vDPA went with a half blown device only > iommu user without considering existing abstractions like containers VDPA IOMMU was done *for Intel*, as the kind of half-architected thing you are advocating should be allowed for IDXD here. Not sure why you think bashing that work is going to help your case here. I'm saying Intel needs to get its architecture together and stop ceating this mess across the kernel to support Intel devices. Jason
