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 10:41:06 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@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: <20200213103714-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
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>
 <20200213150542.GW4271@mellanox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200213150542.GW4271@mellanox.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:05:42AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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.


That's just a ton of useless code duplication, and a good chance
to have minor variations in implementations confusing
userspace.

Instead, each device implement the same interface, and then
vhost sits on top.

> > > 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

That bus is exactly what Greg KH proposed. There are other ways
to solve this I guess but this bikeshedding is getting tiring.
Come on it's an internal kernel interface, if we feel
it was a wrong direction to take we can change our minds later.
Main thing is getting UAPI right.

-- 
MST