From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A946F569A for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:09:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:09:38 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="860340126" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:09:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:09:31 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20151214130931.GD29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1449763652-86292-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <1485514.3e9eA57k0j@xps13> <20151214114732.GB29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <2070148.TLndilS6eD@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2070148.TLndilS6eD@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] virtio: fix virtio_net_hdr desc pointing to the same buffer X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:09:40 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-14 19:47, Yuanhan Liu: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:32:24AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2015-12-14 11:01, Yuanhan Liu: > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:07:32AM +0800, Huawei@dpdk.org wrote: > > > > > The virtio_net_hdr desc all pointed to the same buffer. It doesn't cause > > > > > issue because in the simple TX mode we don't use the header. This patch > > > > > makes the header desc point to different buffer. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Huawei Xie > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Yuanhan Liu > > > > > > Does it fix something in the current behaviour? > > > > It's more like a logic fixing to me. > > > > > I have the feeling it may wait for 2.3. > > > > It's been introduced in v2.2, with Huawei's simple tx patchset. > > Therefore, I guess 2.2 is good to go? > > The vhost driver has been validated without with patch. Huawei stated in the commit log that "It doesn't cause issue because in the simple TX mode we don't use the header". > Merging it would be taking the risk of breaking something > (or just reduce performance) for no clear benefit. > Am I missing something? I know your concerns: we really should be cagy about making any changes when a release is close, especially when all stuff are validated. From this point of view, I agree with you we could delay it to v2.3. Maybe huawei have more inputs here? --yliu