From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:47:24 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH V2 2/2] virtio: introduce STOP status bit Message-ID: References: <094e15d4-169a-87e9-5ebb-93439ea72831@redhat.com> <1ab19438-cc13-bbe5-7fec-53a113d85463@redhat.com> <0213e6c2-59aa-f140-7231-36231b42051d@redhat.com> <87o8ax8dmc.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m3yg3qN6+Ja7XLg7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87o8ax8dmc.fsf@redhat.com> To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Jason Wang , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Eugenio Perez Martin , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, Virtio-Dev , Max Gurtovoy , Oren Duer , Shahaf Shuler , Parav Pandit , Bodong Wang , Alexander Mikheev , Halil Pasic List-ID: --m3yg3qN6+Ja7XLg7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20 2021, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:04:55AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >> Let me clarify, I agree we can't have a standard device state for all = kinds > >> of device. > >>=20 > >> That's way I tend to leave them to be device specific. (but not > >> implementation specific) > > > > Unfortunately device state is sometimes implementation-specific. Not > > because the device is proprietary, but because the actual state is > > meaningless to other implementations. > > > > I mentioned virtiofs as an example where file system backends can be > > implemented in completely different ways so the device state cannot be > > migrated between implementations. > > > >> But we can generalize the virtqueue state for sure. > > > > I agree and also that some device types can standardize their device > > state representations. But I think it's a technical requirement to > > support implementation-specific state for device types where > > cross-implementation migration is not possible. > > > > I'm not saying the implementation-specific state representation has to > > be a binary blob. There could be an identifier registry to ensure live > > migration compatibility checks can be performed. There could also be a > > standard binary encoding for migration data. But the contents will be > > implementation-specific for some devices. >=20 > Can we at least put those implementation-specific states into some kind > of structured, standardized form? E.g. something like >=20 > > > > >=20 > so that we can at least do compat checks for "I know how to handle foo"? Yes, that's what I was trying to describe. Stefan --m3yg3qN6+Ja7XLg7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhpWov9P5fNqsNXdanKSrs4Grc8gFAmD2xdwACgkQnKSrs4Gr c8gHrwf6AwDZth12ypmWBZsCSRMMJ6DJoYAt4FbYGLVQLlVdLSjLGqZiO6mtQuu5 +JszIqHHsEoD3lewCndKqaLF60qrjCrTUiOlkZDnlGDb1fqzx+vPA1cghtiHna/s dEXrNNg/bW5xgqz5tkYUbGyLxTOeYDRqpK2rDtC4c5k/81A3Bji9lfPcjlikcNS7 vWoxnUVVcSHzCaZ+iA6bVOeUNkFyaVDXRyxwqGY21VoAwPCBwTddPdAojWPdEdTQ Nk/3VrNoYsx4uQnOXFfUH1aebc4hTYOU0Zeyd3VAKM/FJrdnUdyOZTjU+CJZ7owl 6ivzlfpjikMIPprqaJKlB1y83/MvMg== =Jf6A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m3yg3qN6+Ja7XLg7--