On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:47:06PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/11/7 下午8:43, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/11/7 下午7:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:18:45PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/11/7 下午5:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:35:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > This sample driver creates mdev device that simulate > > > > > > virtio net device > > > > > > over virtio mdev transport. The device is implemented through vringh > > > > > > and workqueue. A device specific dma ops is to make sure HVA is used > > > > > > directly as the IOVA. This should be sufficient for kernel virtio > > > > > > driver to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only 'virtio' type is supported right now. I plan to add 'vhost' type > > > > > > on top which requires some virtual IOMMU implemented in this sample > > > > > > driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Cornelia Huck<cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > I'd prefer it that we call this something else, e.g. > > > > > mvnet-loopback. Just so people don't expect a fully > > > > > functional device somehow. Can be renamed when applying? > > > > Actually, I plan to extend it as another standard network interface for > > > > kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack > > > > device. > > > > Does this sounds good to you? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > > > to rename the driver at that point right? > > > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > > > and get a loopback instead. > > > > > > Or did I miss something? > > > > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not > > be used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to > > driver/virtio. > > > > But if you insist, I can post a V11. > > > > Thanks > > > Or maybe it's better to rename the type of current mdev from 'virtio' to > 'virtio-loopback'. Then we can add more types in the future. > > Thanks > Maybe but is virtio actually a loopback somehow? I thought we can bind a regular virtio device there, no? -- MST
