On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 05:38:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:50:57AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:42:52AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 09:40:59PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:44:11PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > VDPA is very different from this. You might call them both mediation, > > > > > > sure, but then you need another word to describe the additional > > > > > > changes VPDA is doing. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry about hijacking the thread a little bit, but could you > > > > > call out some of the changes that are the most problematic > > > > > for you? > > > > > > > > I don't really know these details. > > > > > > Maybe, you then should desist from saying things like "It entirely fails > > > to achieve the most important thing it needs to do!" You are not making > > > any new friends with saying this about a piece of software without > > > knowing the details. > > > > I can't tell you what cloud operators are doing, but I can say with > > confidence that it is not the same as VDPA. As I said, if you want to > > know more details you need to ask a cloud operator. > > So it's not the changes that are problematic, it's that you have > customers who are not using vdpa. The "most important thing" that vdpa > fails at is simply converting your customers from vfio to vdpa. I said the most important thing was that VFIO presents exactly the same virtio device to the VM as the baremetal. Do you dispute that, technically, VDPA does not actually achieve that? Then why is it so surprising that people don't want a solution that changes the vPCI ABI they worked hard to create in the first place? I'm still baffled why you think everyone should use vdpa.. Jason
