[PATCH v2 RFC] nvme: improve performance for virtual NVMe devices
Helen Koike
helen.koike at collabora.co.uk
Wed May 11 09:50:25 PDT 2016
Hi Christoph
On 21-04-2016 10:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've not spent much time at it due to a busy conference week, but there
> are two main comments on why I don't think this is suitable as is
> despite really liking the general idea.
>
> - I'd really like this to be proposed as an official extension to the
> NVMe technical workgroup. I'm also happy to help with making that
> happen. I really don't like to merge it until we have some basic
> agreement on it, although once the basic agreement is there it
> shouldn't be too hard to also support the older google specific
> version. And this is no new feedback, a couple of people including
> me said that a long time ago, and we've seen zero action on it.
How the process of submitting a proposal to the NVMe technical workgroup
works? If it is just a matter of sending a document as the entry point
and as you offered help, I was wondering if you could just forward this
proposal to them and I can continue the work from that point onwards (as
we wouldn't like to burden you), would that be possible?
Here is the last draft:
https://people.collabora.co.uk/~koike/nvme-set-doorbel-mem-v2.odt
Thank you
Helen
> - the code is a mess in this version. I really don't see the need for
> all the ifdefs, but if you really want to keep them they should move
> out of the main code path and just stub out helpers that would
> otherwise do work.
>
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list