qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] vGPU core driver : to provide common


From: Neo Jia
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] vGPU core driver : to provide common interface for vGPU.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:34:09 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Neo Jia [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 5:35 PM
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 08:57:08AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Neo Jia [mailto:address@hidden
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:55 PM
> > >
> > If we can make it free, why not?
> 
> I can buy-in this argument.

Great!

> 
> Qemu is not a kernel component. And UUID is OPTIONAL for Qemu.
> 
> KVM is the kernel component. It doesn't use UUID at all. the relation between
> UUID and VM is fully maintained in user space.

Hold on ... we are talking about the vgpu.ko not KVM right?

UUID is just a generic way to represent an object, here we use a uuid to
represent a virtual gpu device.

> 
> > 
> > Please also note that using UUID to represent a virtual gpu device directory
> > doesn't mean UUID is part of a GPU resource.
> 
> but it adds a hard dependency on another resource - UUID. 
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > So let's keep UUID as an optional parameter. When UUID is provided, it
> > > will be included in the vGPU name then your requirement can be met.
> > >
> > 
> > Like I have said before, we are seeking a generic interface to allow upper 
> > layer
> > software stack to manage vgpu device for different vendors, so we should 
> > not really
> > consider "an optional path for vgpu device discovery" at all.
> > 
> > This is why I think we should use this UUID as a generic management 
> > interface,
> > and we shouldn't have anything optional.
> > 
> 
> I don't buy-in this argument. I always think kernel design should provide 
> enough flexibility, instead of assuming user space behavior.
> 

I think you are using the wrong terms here. Flexibility doesn't apply here. What
we are trying to achieve here is to have a generic interface for upper layer
software to manage vgpu device. 

> Let me also add some Citrix friends. See how they feel about the necessity of
> having UUID in vgpu name.

Sorry?

Thanks,
Neo

> 
> Thanks
> Kevin



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]