Re: [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA

From: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>,
	mst@redhat.com, lulu@redhat.com, leonro@nvidia.com
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vDPA/ifcvf: enable Intel C5000X-PL virtio-block for vDPA
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:23:38 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <af2bb5e6-e690-1aa6-4be3-75a18750aeb4@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6b27f59-ff17-1d63-0065-fd03ee36cd2d@redhat.com>


On 4/15/2021 3:17 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> 在 2021/4/15 下午2:41, Zhu Lingshan 写道:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we've discussed this sometime in the past but what's the 
>>>>> reason for such whitelist consider there's already a 
>>>>> get_features() implemention?
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g Any reason to block VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROS or 
>>>>> VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> The reason is some feature bits are supported in the device but not 
>>>> supported by the driver, e.g, for virtio-net, mq & cq 
>>>> implementation is not ready in the driver.
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand the case of virtio-net but I wonder why we need this 
>>> for block where we don't vq cvq.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> This is still a subset of the feature bits read from hardware, I 
>> leave it here to code consistently, and indicate what we support 
>> clearly.
>> Are you suggesting remove this feature bits list and just use what we 
>> read from hardware?
>>
>> Thansk 
>
>
> Yes, please do that.
>
> The whiltelist doesn't help in this case I think.
OK, will remove this in V2

Thanks
>
> Thanks