From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56ACCA0487 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:27:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7805B3E; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:27:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B5A5B3A for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:27:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jul 2019 02:27:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,446,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="247557402" Received: from npg-dpdk-virtio-tbie-2.sh.intel.com (HELO ___) ([10.67.104.151]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2019 02:27:14 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:25:51 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie To: David Marchand Cc: dev , "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <20190703092551.GA958@___> References: <20190703054508.22824-1-tiwei.bie@intel.com> <20190703073314.GA18868@___> <20190703075657.GA20458@___> <20190703081550.GA25721@___> <20190703085929.GA30592@___> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] bus/pci: avoid depending on private value in kernel source 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:10:21AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:01 AM Tiwei Bie wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:26:39AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > This patch breaks the ABI by extending rte_pci_device. > > You must rework it to avoid this break. > > I didn't expect it to be merged in this release. I just want > to draw other's attention on this and kick off the discussion > (it would be great if you would like to share your thoughts > on this). If there is a way to avoid extending rte_pci_device, > it would be definitely great. But if we have to break it, then > we would want to send out the announce as early as possible. > > > What we have here is a vfio private thing, we don't need it to be exposed. > > Did not think it through yet. > How about having an internal (as in, in the pci driver code) representation of > the pci devices? > This internal structure would embed the rte_pci_device exposed to the others > subsystems and the applications and the vfio code would just get what it wants > by using offsetof? I think it's a good idea! I'll give it a try. Thanks! Tiwei > > > -- > David Marchand