From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:11:15 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add virtio Admin Virtqueue specification Message-ID: <20220119030711-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220113145103.26894-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220113145103.26894-2-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <20220113124137-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4946a0fe-70f0-43cc-6730-f8ab0f3d8687@nvidia.com> <20220117160951-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <115a8f4a-3f64-e8a0-86d9-26b8d15afa2c@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <115a8f4a-3f64-e8a0-86d9-26b8d15afa2c@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: Jason Wang Cc: Max Gurtovoy , virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, cohuck@redhat.com, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, parav@nvidia.com, shahafs@nvidia.com, oren@nvidia.com, stefanha@redhat.com List-ID: On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:04:50AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Exactly, another call for the using the PRS queue instead. But generally > speaking, admin virtqueue limit or complicate the functions that can be > exported to guest. That's why I suggest to decouple all the possible > features out of admin virtqueue, and make it available by both the admin > virtqueue and the transport specific method (e.g capability). I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with starting with a queue, if there's need to also allow passing that over another transport we can add that. In particular, I think it's useful to have a capability to inject requests as if they have been passed through a VQ. Such a capability would address this need, won't it? -- MST