From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faNKI-0000KP-Nx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:34:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faNKC-0002If-A3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:34:46 -0400 Received: from mail-vi1eur04hn0221.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.14.221]:56143 helo=EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faNKB-0002Eq-BT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:34:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 18:34:22 +0300 From: Roman Kagan Message-ID: <20180703153422.GD30904@rkaganb.sw.ru> References: <20180629221907.3662-1-venu.busireddy@oracle.com> <20180702161404.GA2339@rkaganb.sw.ru> <449f1449-ddf6-cd95-976c-14d04d8d503a@oracle.com> <20180703095825.GC30904@rkaganb.sw.ru> <20180703142817.GA3088@vbusired-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180703142817.GA3088@vbusired-vm> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] Use of unique identifier for pairing virtio and passthrough devices... List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Venu Busireddy Cc: si-wei liu , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:28:17AM -0500, Venu Busireddy wrote: > On 2018-07-03 12:58:25 +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > My point with these two questions is that since this patchset is > > defining external interfaces -- with guest OS, with management layer -- > > This patch set is not defining any external interfaces. All this is doing > is provide the means and locations to store the "group identifier". How > that info will be used, I thought, should be another patch set. Device properties are a part of the interface to the management layer. PCI vendor capabilities are a part of the interface to the guest OS. So yes, I think it makes sense to have at least a rough plan on how it's going to be used. Thanks, Roman.