> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:15 PM > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 3:36 AM Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:29 PM > > > > > > Well, it's an example of how vDPA is implemented. I think we agree > > > that for vDPA, vendors have the flexibility to implement their perferrable > datapath. > > > > > Yes for the vdpa level and for the virtio level. > > > > > > > > > > I remember few months back, you acked in the weekly meeting that > > > > TC has > > > approved the AQ direction. > > > > And we are still in this circle of debating the AQ. > > > > > > I think not. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the proposal > > > here is for vDPA, and hope it can provide forward compatibility to > > > virtio. So in the context of vDPA, admin virtqueue is not a must. > > In context of vdpa over virtio, an efficient transport interface is needed. > > If AQ is not much any other interface such as hundreds to thousands of > registers is not must either. > > > > AQ is one interface proposed with multiple benefits. > > I haven’t seen any other alternatives that delivers all the benefits. > > Only one I have seen is synchronous config registers. > > > > If you let vendors progress, handful of sensible interfaces can exist, each > with different characteristics. > > How would we proceed from here? > > I'm pretty fine with having admin virtqueue in the virtio spec. If you > remember, I've even submitted a proposal to use admin virtqueue as a > transport last year. > > Let's just proceed in the virtio-dev list. o.k. thanks. I am aligned with your thoughts now.
