On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 08:39:11PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
>
>
From: Michael S. Tsirkin <>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:36 PM
> >
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:08:12PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> We can debate and change from cvq to new cfgvq as part of the journey.
> >
> It is fine.
> >
>
> Just to stress, cvq has a bunch of drawbacks. For example it is hard to access
>
> from the hypervisor since it's DMA from VF.
>
> This is why I think our direction should be to add a vq transport that does all
>
> config accesses over admin commands.
> We debate this before, so will write is below.
>
> Or maybe I'm wrong.
> >
>
>
> But, let's distinguish between requirements, and between requirements and
>
> design. Getting supported counters is a requirement.
>
> Doing this over cvq is a design. Reducing MMIO registers is a requirement. OK?
>
> Yes, I would write it as reducing MMIO and accessing it over vq of the own device is a requirement.
reducing mmio is a requirement (unrelated to counters btw, it's
general). access over vq is a design point I think.
--
MST
