Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     mst@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        tiwei.bie@intel.com, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com,
        cunming.liang@intel.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com,
        rob.miller@broadcom.com, xiao.w.wang@intel.com,
        haotian.wang@sifive.com, lingshan.zhu@intel.com,
        eperezma@redhat.com, lulu@redhat.com, parav@mellanox.com,
        kevin.tian@intel.com, stefanha@redhat.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        hch@infradead.org, aadam@redhat.com, jiri@mellanox.com,
        shahafs@mellanox.com, hanand@xilinx.com, mhabets@solarflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] vDPA: introduce vDPA bus
Message-ID: <20200213150542.GW4271@mellanox.com>
References: <20200210035608.10002-1-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20200210035608.10002-4-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20200211134746.GI4271@mellanox.com>
 <cf7abcc9-f8ef-1fe2-248e-9b9028788ade@redhat.com>
 <20200212125108.GS4271@mellanox.com>
 <12775659-1589-39e4-e344-b7a2c792b0f3@redhat.com>
 <20200213134128.GV4271@mellanox.com>
 <ebaea825-5432-65e2-2ab3-720a8c4030e7@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ebaea825-5432-65e2-2ab3-720a8c4030e7@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: mellanox.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1de89200-f5cd-4531-9b8b-08d7b0963424
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2020 15:05:46.5619
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 5OgHvRSQiJaIqUR0iQv5SiJgQj0mFopLu5IxDzpYTxDmC7hHopdzG/PriGlsv9ctdMmatxPwkpEhdRPisGqssg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR05MB4303
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:58:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/2/13 下午9:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:34:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > >    You have dev, type or
> > > > class to choose from. Type is rarely used and doesn't seem to be used
> > > > by vdpa, so class seems the right choice
> > > > 
> > > > Jason
> > > Yes, but my understanding is class and bus are mutually exclusive. So we
> > > can't add a class to a device which is already attached on a bus.
> > While I suppose there are variations, typically 'class' devices are
> > user facing things and 'bus' devices are internal facing (ie like a
> > PCI device)
> 
> 
> Though all vDPA devices have the same programming interface, but the
> semantic is different. So it looks to me that use bus complies what
> class.rst said:
> 
> "
> 
> Each device class defines a set of semantics and a programming interface
> that devices of that class adhere to. Device drivers are the
> implementation of that programming interface for a particular device on
> a particular bus.
> 
> "

Here we are talking about the /dev/XX node that provides the
programming interface. All the vdpa devices have the same basic
chardev interface and discover any semantic variations 'in band'

> > So why is this using a bus? VDPA is a user facing object, so the
> > driver should create a class vhost_vdpa device directly, and that
> > driver should live in the drivers/vhost/ directory.
>  
> This is because we want vDPA to be generic for being used by different
> drivers which is not limited to vhost-vdpa. E.g in this series, it allows
> vDPA to be used by kernel virtio drivers. And in the future, we will
> probably introduce more drivers in the future.

I don't see how that connects with using a bus.

Every class of virtio traffic is going to need a special HW driver to
enable VDPA, that special driver can create the correct vhost side
class device.

> > For the PCI VF case this driver would bind to a PCI device like
> > everything else
> > 
> > For our future SF/ADI cases the driver would bind to some
> > SF/ADI/whatever device on a bus.
> 
> All these driver will still be bound to their own bus (PCI or other). And
> what the driver needs is to present a vDPA device to virtual vDPA bus on
> top.

Again, I can't see any reason to inject a 'vdpa virtual bus' on
top. That seems like mis-using the driver core.

Jason