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;
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 21:23:52 +0530
From:   Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alay.shah@nutanix.com, suresh.gumpula@nutanix.com,
        shyam.rajendran@nutanix.com, felipe@nutanix.com,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI/sysfs: Allow userspace to query and set device
 reset mechanism
Message-ID: <20210319155352.b2r6b4apjrmuebbx@archlinux>
References: <20210317113140.3de56d6c@omen.home.shazbot.org>
 <YFMYzkg101isRXIM@unreal>
 <20210318142252.fqi3das3mtct4yje@archlinux>
 <YFNqbJZo3wqhMc1S@unreal>
 <20210318170143.ustrbjaqdl644ozj@archlinux>
 <YFOPYs3IGaemTLMj@unreal>
 <20210318174344.yslqpfyct6ziwypd@archlinux>
 <YFShlUgePr1BNnRI@unreal>
 <20210319152317.babevldyslat2gqa@archlinux>
 <YFTFNAeAyovUmQ/W@unreal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFTFNAeAyovUmQ/W@unreal>
Precedence: bulk

On 21/03/19 05:37PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 08:53:17PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > On 21/03/19 03:05PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > > > It was exactly the reason why I think that VM usecase presented by
> > > > > you is not viable.
> > > > >
> > > > Well I didn't present it as new use case. I just gave existing
> > > > usecase based on existing reset attribute. Nothing new here.
> > > > Nothing really changes wrt that use case.
> > >
> > > Of course it is new, please see Alex's response, he said that vfio uses
> > > in-kernel API and not sysfs.
> > >
> > Still it doesn't change in-kernel API either.
>
> Right, but the issue is with user space part of this proposal and not
> in-kernel API.
Userspace part just inhances existing reset attribute still no
significant changes there.
>
>
> <...>
>
> > > > As mentioned earlier not all vendors care about Linux and not
> > > > all of the population can afford to buy new HW just to run Linux.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you are not consistent. At the beginning, we talked about new HW
> > > that has bugs but don't have quirks yet. Here we are talking about old HW
> > > that still doesn't have quirks.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > Does it really matter whether HW is old or new?
> > If old HW doesn't have quirks yet how can we expect
> > new one to have quirks? What if new HW is made by same vendors
> > who don't have any interest in Linux?
>
> It is pretty clear that this sysfs won't improve quirks situation but
> has all potential to reduce their amount even more.
>
> Let's stop this discussion here.
>
> Thanks
>
IMO it does improve usability of devices which I consider to be more
important than developing quirks which are just bandages in the end
not HW fix. There's no point in using Linux if
I can't use the device in the first place and expecting to wait
for some community member to develop quirk without vendor support
is simply unrealistic.
So let's stop this discussion here.

Thanks,
Amey