Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9e4702f2-5473-2139-3858-ae58817bc7b5@bytedance.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 15:43:03 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     stefanha@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230517025424.601141-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
 <20230517025424.601141-2-pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
 <ZGSEq197W8VvOWCc@infradead.org>
From:   zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZGSEq197W8VvOWCc@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 5/17/23 15:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:23AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
>> All the vring based virtqueue methods could be abstratct in theory,
>> MST suggested that add/get bufs and kick functions are quite perfmance
>> sensitive, so export these functions from virtio_ring.ko, drivers
>> still call them in a fast path.
> 
> Who is going to use this?  And why do you think every virtio users
> would want to pay for indirect calls just for your shiny new feature?
> 
> This seems like an amazingly bad idea to me.

Hi,

I have a plan to introduce 'Virtio Over Fabrics'(TCP&RDMA) as Virtio 
transport, as mentioned in cover letter of this series:
3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html

Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.

-- 
zhenwei pi