On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 10:14 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 24/04/17 01:36 AM, Knut Omang wrote: > > My first reflex when reading this thread was to think that this whole domain > > lends it self excellently to testing via Qemu. Could it be that doing this in > > the opposite direction might be a safer approach in the long run even though > > (significant) more work up-front? > > That's an interesting idea. We did do some very limited testing on qemu > with one iteration of our work. However, it's difficult because there is > no support for any RDMA devices which are a part of our primary use > case. Yes, that's why I used 'significant'. One good thing is that given resources it can easily be done in parallel with other development, and will give additional insight of some form. > I also imagine it would be quite difficult to develop those models > given the array of hardware that needs to be supported and the deep > functional knowledge required to figure out appropriate restrictions. >From my naive perspective it seems it need not even be a full model to get some benefits, just low level functionality tests with some instances of a device that offers some MMIO space 'playground'. Or maybe you can leverage some of the already implemented emulated devices in Qemu? Knut > > Logan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
