From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95890C388F9 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF172463D for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="R+JlW+8q" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CBF172463D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:56864 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVcrx-0004S8-DO for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:51:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVcqf-0003w6-PF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:49:53 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:26521) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVcqd-0007mJ-72 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:49:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1603381790; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3URjes8xitPdDAk5s2ADC6/CHuiWsbO7CajfEGBImVk=; b=R+JlW+8qHVv8LVdlR68LyGdzEUAtJKjqATHfurdGAZKa8+1cPGqFOQrCyPYDYU29f9J2gT 2Px4/n0+KJzsPSraFEco0NpJV6zbEBM6UxgXwqzuqodkXST8a4qwg4vZWuA9/npa890pkg Ti0+9R3jcx1qe00Xnpx5KbcEgvsLmVc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-433-FZxVuBjqNbSjUGzzQzzTNA-1; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:49:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: FZxVuBjqNbSjUGzzQzzTNA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE401191E2A0; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-112-67.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.67]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922325C22D; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:49:24 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Kirti Wankhede Subject: Re: [PATCH v26 05/17] vfio: Add VM state change handler to know state of VM Message-ID: <20201022174924.418bb30b.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <39a59eb5-9a22-4f66-531c-489de9ecdf52@nvidia.com> References: <1600817059-26721-1-git-send-email-kwankhede@nvidia.com> <1600817059-26721-6-git-send-email-kwankhede@nvidia.com> <20200924170220.0a9836fe.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200929110312.GF2826@work-vm> <3dd3fe95-c81a-de40-47b0-24f0772974d4@nvidia.com> <20201020125105.5cd790df.cohuck@redhat.com> <245abdf6-245d-5f88-e04b-35fad763560c@nvidia.com> <20201022095125.60319084.cohuck@redhat.com> <39a59eb5-9a22-4f66-531c-489de9ecdf52@nvidia.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/22 08:33:10 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: cjia@nvidia.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, Zhengxiao.zx@alibaba-inc.com, shuangtai.tst@alibaba-inc.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com, eauger@redhat.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com, quintela@redhat.com, ziye.yang@intel.com, armbru@redhat.com, mlevitsk@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, felipe@nutanix.com, zhi.a.wang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, yan.y.zhao@intel.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , alex.williamson@redhat.com, changpeng.liu@intel.com, eskultet@redhat.com, Ken.Xue@amd.com, jonathan.davies@nutanix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:12:58 +0530 Kirti Wankhede wrote: > On 10/22/2020 1:21 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > I'm a bit worried though that all that reasoning which flags are set or > > cleared when is quite complex, and it's easy to make mistakes. > > > > Can we model this as a FSM, where an event (running state changes) > > transitions the device state from one state to another? I (personally) > > find FSMs easier to comprehend, but I'm not sure whether that change > > would be too invasive. If others can parse the state changes with that > > mask/value interface, I won't object to it. > > > > I agree FSM will be easy and for long term may be easy to maintain. But > at this moment it will be intrusive change. For now we can go ahead with > this code and later we can change to FSM model, if all agrees on it. Yes, we can certainly revisit this later.