On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:58:54 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote: > > Sure, but as an application of that, people talk about e.g. "host" > > and "device" ends of a bus, DMA transfer, etc. As a result of which > > "host" has come to mean "computer; server; the big rack-mounted box > > you plug cards into". > > A connotation which is unfortunate once a single device can live on > > two separate PCIe hierarchies, connected to two computers each with > > its own hostname, and the one which owns the device is the cluster > > of embedded CPUs inside the card, rather than the big metal box. > > I agree that "host" isn't going to work as a multi-host capable device > might end up having only one "host" that can actually handle the > configuration of the switch for the entire device. So then you have > different types of "host" interfaces. Thank $deity I haven't had to think about multi-host NPU/DPU/IPUs for a couple of years now, but I think trying to elect a leader in charge across the hosts is not a good idea there. Much easier to proxy all configuration thru FW, as much as I hate that (since FW is usually closed). That said choosing the term is about intuition not proofs so "host" won't fly.
