Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753726AbdFPMwb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:52:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50810 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753276AbdFPMwa (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:52:30 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 6478D3D959 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alex.williamson@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 6478D3D959 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:52:26 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Kirti Wankhede , Xiaoguang Chen , chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhenyuw@linux.intel.com, zhiyuan.lv@intel.com, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, zhi.a.wang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations Message-ID: <20170616065226.59d80721@w520.home> In-Reply-To: <1497608682.30239.3.camel@redhat.com> References: <1497513611-2814-1-git-send-email-xiaoguang.chen@intel.com> <1497513611-2814-6-git-send-email-xiaoguang.chen@intel.com> <1497542438.29252.1.camel@redhat.com> <20170615143833.7526351b@w520.home> <1497608682.30239.3.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 673 Lines: 20 On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:24:42 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm not sure I agree regarding the vgpu statement, maybe this is not > > dmabuf specific, but what makes it vgpu specific?  We need to > > separate > > our current usage plans from what it's actually describing and I > > don't > > see that it describes anything vgpu specific. > > Well, it describes a framebuffer, what non-graphic device would need > that? Graphics is not necessarily vgpu though, which is my point. It should not be named after our intended use case (vgpu), it should be named after what it's describing (a framebuffer, or graphics plane). Thanks, Alex