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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61B9C433EF for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:03:00 +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 3314A60FE8 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:03:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 3314A60FE8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43796 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdT2R-0005jN-0G for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:02:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdT05-0004j9-1D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:00:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:37370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdT00-0005WE-Or for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:00:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1634803226; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BEj1DTo7+1QjV0XKsjD2VQzoagUyCZkPHQ8QJpa0dUA=; b=ByjNgLCYtw+KonFkNXokrUQVyoVqRO1BFwvzep2hM3udL3OKbaOj3p6eW31Xngb9ykgqGy IwOCMvnrvtCteQhnQh9g+XajRZUY3nyf6dxGjrlXuxNhqMSL1HDxCL15/O6FuaemUXO4VE UvF3at1LvQA8325IqaYFYl3V6qhddAI= Received: from mail-pf1-f197.google.com (mail-pf1-f197.google.com [209.85.210.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-469-aw8pfYOtPEG3JNbnkrWH3Q-1; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:00:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: aw8pfYOtPEG3JNbnkrWH3Q-1 Received: by mail-pf1-f197.google.com with SMTP id q202-20020a6275d3000000b0044dc3987ae6so3297185pfc.12 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:00:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BEj1DTo7+1QjV0XKsjD2VQzoagUyCZkPHQ8QJpa0dUA=; b=mFf1OxIUFJvQyB3yUDe39vaPe9pYHyF8mmnzMxzuL1XxO1EYB1ruyuXB3/MhOwZOL4 CaSC3shs4wFnp4qJrApk643YvGzxmYHqacu8K4B7ppatSixcENzbm/vifImxLsc0Ztzf QrnnBuFDYgbIyOx73q489jEvPuhWJrquUpQtL7l6/XPw6Yye7zIegXuQtAcGPsmEvWXw 3YnqNmbSu1NkSAa6RFg91sIP49kqUexZgO7eDIKmKfR7kErDOLIcsH1M6SUrIlZikNHq NDmCR5+l9f4AfD+glmveH9+QdY9VAl72xp2jQAHFk5kj/iqAvxdu6X+WJW1l5K4qjdJq aDmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Kuwjnd1ynPrhgs+twH06pBEbOxVzARwXYW+MZoW74Ez4rlMYl 43IY2z6Ny0UkX9QU9mANAnS6xPFOk9KAC762aJx2NqAhSxwY8lcVvaQIgsErTNnID60sfEBr/tt Ae1Ch3uzdjP+WN2w= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e38f:: with SMTP id b15mr4945116pjz.76.1634803224098; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:00:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLm+KgsJiz30xzsAFF5Q0BXs8os2bdKV4lGcrT9iYQsLiUGYy5SUoyf9o8J9hGu8z127jt9Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e38f:: with SMTP id b15mr4945047pjz.76.1634803223590; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-m1.local ([84.17.34.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t38sm5442182pfg.102.2021.10.21.01.00.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:00:16 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] vl: Prioritize device realizations Message-ID: References: <20210818194217.110451-1-peterx@redhat.com> <2817620d-facb-eeee-b854-64193fa4da33@redhat.com> <12cdd7f4-16c2-5af8-aeb2-e168506eefc2@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <12cdd7f4-16c2-5af8-aeb2-e168506eefc2@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=peterx@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eric Auger , Alex Williamson , Paolo Bonzini , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 09:17:57AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > I know, whenever someone proposes a way to tackle part of a challenging > problem, everybody discovers their hopes and dreams and suddenly you > have to go all the way to solve the complete problem. The end result is > that there is no improvement at all instead of incremental improvement. Yeah, there's the trade-off; we either not moving forward or otherwise we could potentially bring (more) chaos so the code is less maintainable. Before I'm sure I won't do the latter and convince the others, I need to hold off a bit. :-) > I'm not planning on letting the user set the actual number of memslots > to use, only an upper limit. But to me, it's fundamentally the same: the > user has to enable this behavior explicitly. I'm not familiar enough on virtio-mem's side, it's just that it will stop working when the ideal value (even in a very corner case) is less than the maximum specified, then that trick stops people from specifying the ideal. But if it's bigger the better then indeed I don't see much to worry. -- Peter Xu