Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 16/19] virtio-pci: introduce modern device module
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shahafs@mellanox.com,
        lulu@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com, rdunlap@infradead.org
References: <20210104065503.199631-1-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20210104065503.199631-17-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20210205103214-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <24cb3ebe-1248-3e31-0716-cf498cf1d728@redhat.com>
 <20210208070253-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <fe639f0f-d639-3c3c-e297-042127788aca@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:29:46 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210208070253-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 2021/2/8 下午8:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:42:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2021/2/5 下午11:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:55:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>
>>> I don't exactly get why we need to split the modern driver out,
>>> and it can confuse people who are used to be seeing virtio-pci.
>>
>> The virtio-pci module still there. No user visible changes. Just some codes
>> that could be shared with other driver were split out.
>>
> What I am saying is this: we can have virtio-vdpa depend on
> virtio-pci without splitting the common code out to an
> extra module.


Ok.


>
>>> The vdpa thing so far looks like a development tool, why do
>>> we care that it depends on a bit of extra code?
>>
>> If I'm not misunderstanding, trying to share codes is proposed by you here:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/10/232
>>
>> We also had the plan to convert IFCVF to use this library.
>>
>> Thanks
> If that happens then an extra module might become useful.


So does it make sense that I post a new version and let's merge it 
first. Then Intel or I can convert IFCVF to use the library?

Thanks


>