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 7571AA00E6 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:10:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABB33798; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:10:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A489322C for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:10:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jul 2019 21:10:41 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,476,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="168515142" Received: from npg-dpdk-virtio-tbie-2.sh.intel.com (HELO ___) ([10.67.104.66]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2019 21:10:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:09:03 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie To: "Yu, Jin" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Liu, Changpeng" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "Wang, Zhihong" , LinLi , XunNi , YuZhang Message-ID: <20190711040903.GA27138@___> References: <20190708183959.50293> <20190710104356.6580-1-jin.yu@intel.com> <20190710071806.GA24475@___> <20190711021836.GA22227@___> 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] [PATCH v2 1/2] vhost: support inflight share memory protocol feature 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 Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:39:46AM +0800, Yu, Jin wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:09:26AM +0800, Yu, Jin wrote: > > [...] > > > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > > > +rte_vhost_set_inflight_desc_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > > > + uint16_t idx); > > > > [...] > > > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > > > +rte_vhost_clr_inflight_desc_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > > > + uint16_t last_used_idx, uint16_t idx); > > > > [...] > > > > > +int __rte_experimental > > > > > +rte_vhost_set_last_inflight_io_split(int vid, uint16_t vring_idx, > > > > > + uint16_t idx); > > > > > > > > What will be different in the function prototype when we design > > > > above three APIs for packed ring? > > > The whole process is quite different as there are no avail ring and userd > > ring. > > > > I mean what will be different in the return value and parameters? > > Could you show us the expected function prototypes (i.e. just the function > > declarations) for packed ring? > Sorry I am not sure, I am working on this. It doesn't matter :) But please consider it as part of the work in this series, as it would be helpful for us to design the APIs if we know the expected APIs for packed ring. Thanks, Tiwei