On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:20:37 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 03:01:12PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > Though it would be nice if qemu didn't need two implementations so Yi > > > I'd rather see a new info in this series as well and qemu can just > > > consistently use dev_id and never bdf in iommufd mode. > > > > We also need to consider how libvirt determines if QEMU has the kernel > > support it needs to pass file descriptors. It'd be a lot cleaner if > > this aligned with the introduction of vfio cdevs. > > Yes, that would be much better if it was one package. > > But this is starting to grow and we have so many threads that need to > progress blocked on this cdev enablement :( > > Could we go forward with the cdev main patches and kconfig it to > experimental or something while the rest of the parts are completed > and tested through qemu? ie move the vfio-pci reset enablment to after > the cdev patches? We need to be able to guarantee that there cannot be any significant builds of the kernel with vfio cdev support if our intention is to stage it for libvirt. We don't have a global EXPERIMENTAL config option any more. Adding new code under BROKEN seems wrong. Fedora ships with STAGING enabled. A sternly worded Kconfig entry is toothless. What is the proposed mechanism to make this not look like a big uncompiled code dump? Thanks, Alex
