From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C5F36E for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:44:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1489650297; x=1521186297; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=TRYTvHN9ozVgaauARJr7IlIakSekwLt5L6btTxvhG9g=; b=sXx8bgIssFhhafFtfLyvAcOtdTMS526eBpcqRt327N85DDCLtuDY9zNI e+GswCNBvN8B81QjHQer36l0hodHTA==; Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2017 00:44:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,170,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="236826624" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2017 00:44:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:43:11 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Harris James R , Liu Changpeng Message-ID: <20170316074311.GR18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1488534682-3494-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1488534682-3494-4-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 03/17] vhost: use new APIs to handle features X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:44:57 -0000 On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:43:44AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c > >index 8433a54..f7227bf 100644 > >--- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c > >+++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c > >@@ -143,9 +143,9 @@ > > * The features that we support are requested. > > */ > > static uint64_t > >-vhost_user_get_features(void) > >+vhost_user_get_features(struct virtio_net *dev) > > { > >- return VHOST_FEATURES; > >+ return rte_vhost_driver_get_features(dev->ifname); > > } > > > > /* > >@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ > > static int > > vhost_user_set_features(struct virtio_net *dev, uint64_t features) > > { > >- if (features & ~VHOST_FEATURES) > >+ if (features & ~rte_vhost_driver_get_features(dev->ifname)) > > rte_vhost_driver_get_features() returns -1 if the socket is not found. > It would result in accepting any feature trying to be set. If we have gone here, I think rte_vhost_driver_get_features() should not return -1. The only exception is user unregistered such socket during the negotiation? --yliu