On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:46:44PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Hi Stefan, > >
>
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <> >
> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 4:17 PM > > >
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:06:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > >
>
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <> > > >
> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:58 AM > > > > > > >
> Why not just do this in the VIRTIO TC? > > > > > > >
> The workflow and infrastructure for developing the VIRTIO spec already >
> exists. > > >
> A weekly or bi-weekly virtio-net call can be scheduled. > > > > > > > > > >
> Are you hitting scalability bottlenecks or limitations with the current VIRTIO >
> TC? > > > > >
> May be. > >
> SC is mainly networking specific interested members who has the described >
> mission and SOP. > >
> This requires interworking on many features, discussion, and design in >
> phased approach like suggested above. > > > > >
> Also it is too much of the ask for the whole TC to get involved in such process. > >
> Better to start with forum that is focused on mission and SOP, committed to >
> deliver on agreed timeline in 4 step approach. > > > > >
> Few months later when operation works fine, may be main TC can also adopt >
> similar approach to wider level. > > >
> What is the scope of the sub-committee? Is it a project with a specific goal like >
> designing a new VIRTIO network device from scratch that is friendlier to PCI >
> device implementation? Or is it supposed to be home for all virtio-net >
> development?
> No. designing from the scratch is not the goal.
> As listed in the mission line, goal is to "Produce backward compatible".
> And as you listed, would like to make it friendlier for the PCI device implementation.
> In this process many virtio-net features are also considered as they are inter-related. Can you confirm whether the sub-committee is supposed to host all virtio-net development or whether it's a specific project for PCI device implementation? Thanks, Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
