On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > NVMe and mlx5 have basically identical functionality in this respect. > Other devices and vendors will likely implement similar functionality. > It would be ideal if we had an interface generic enough to support > them all. > > Is the mlx5 interface proposed here sufficient to support the NVMe > model? I think it's close, but not quite, because the the NVMe > "offline" state isn't explicitly visible in the mlx5 model. I thought Keith basically said "offline" wasn't really useful as a distinct idea. It is an artifact of nvme being a standards body divorced from the operating system. In linux offline and no driver attached are the same thing, you'd never want an API to make a nvme device with a driver attached offline because it would break the driver. So I think it is good as is (well one of the 8 versions anyhow). Keith didn't go into detail why the queue allocations in nvme were any different than the queue allocations in mlx5. I expect they can probably work the same where the # of interrupts is an upper bound on the # of CPUs that can get queues and the device, once instantiated, could be configured for the number of queues to actually operate, if it wants. Jason
