[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-06 Thread Yuanhan Liu
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:11:01AM +, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > There is a plan to use vHost PMD, so from OVS point of view the virtio > > stuff would be hidden because vhost PMD would look like just as a > > regular ethernet, right? > > But we still need to have access to

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-06 Thread Yuanhan Liu
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:14:09AM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > > I'd vote for this one, as it sounds very clean to me. This would also > > solve the block issue of this patch. Though it would break OVS, I'm thinking > > that'd be okay, as OVS has dependence on DPDK version: what we need to

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-06 Thread Ilya Maximets
--- Original Message --- Sender : Yuanhan Liu Date : Apr 06, 2016 08:38 (GMT+03:00) Title : Re: Re: [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local. On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:11:01AM +, Ilya Maximets wrote

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-06 Thread Ilya Maximets
--- Original Message --- Sender : Flavio Leitner Date : Apr 06, 2016 07:14 (GMT+03:00) Title : Re: [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local. On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:47:33PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-06 Thread Flavio Leitner
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:47:33PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:06:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:41AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > > Array of buf_vector's is just an array for temporary storing information > > > about available

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-05 Thread Yuanhan Liu
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:37:13AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-04-05 13:47, Yuanhan Liu: > > So, I was considering to add vhost-user Tx delayed-copy (or zero copy) > > support recently, which comes to yet another ABI violation, as we need > > add a new field to virtio_memory_regions

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-05 Thread Yuanhan Liu
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:06:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:41AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > Array of buf_vector's is just an array for temporary storing information > > about available descriptors. It used only locally in virtio_dev_merge_rx() > > and there is

[dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.

2016-04-05 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-05 13:47, Yuanhan Liu: > So, I was considering to add vhost-user Tx delayed-copy (or zero copy) > support recently, which comes to yet another ABI violation, as we need > add a new field to virtio_memory_regions struct to do guest phys addr > to host phys addr translation. You may ask,