search for: vfio_vhost_mdev_ops

...t vhost-mdev take this device only when users explicitly ask it to do it. Or maybe we can have a different MDEV_ID for vhost-mdev but share the device ops with virtio-mdev. > > > > > > return vfio_add_group_dev(dev, &vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops, mdev); > > > And in vfio_vhost_mdev_ops, all its need is to just implement vhost-net > ioctl and translate them to virtio-mdev transport (e.g device_ops I proposed > or ioctls other whatever other method) API. I see, so my previous understanding is basically correct: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/17/332 I.e. we won't have a s...

...it supports virtio-mdev device only: static struct mdev_class_id id_table[] = { ??? { MDEV_ID_VIRTIO }, ??? { 0 }, }; static struct mdev_driver vhost_mdev_driver = { ??? ... ??? .id_table = id_table, } > > return vfio_add_group_dev(dev, &vfio_vhost_mdev_dev_ops, mdev); And in vfio_vhost_mdev_ops, all its need is to just implement vhost-net ioctl and translate them to virtio-mdev transport (e.g device_ops I proposed or ioctls other whatever other method) API. And it could have a dummy ops implementation for the other device_ops. > } > > static void vhost_mdev_remove(struct dev...

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:08:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2019/9/18 ??10:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > So I have some questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new vhost char > > > > > device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility? > > > > One

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:08:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2019/9/18 ??10:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > So I have some questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Compared to method 2, what's the advantage of creating a new vhost char > > > > > device? I guess it's for keep the API compatibility? > > > > One