From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C38F559C for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id n186so46451296wmn.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:46:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=Q6oF7CUvCruiMnn/Ypvpsq9sN3FAcj8NEqOe3Tevc5Y=; b=VRof+4vK2rjoMRnqACFxuTAOmVfmu2c9Y7+qOjB8u4zVWW50thooWDPftbyb/0Qjs9 WJIn2W9gHSwX4sTyzNYeIa5dbpL5n06QnVrVCl6BDmVsO/4q+Lot4jZhaZapTHyWn4aU THSyVWvSWi5rOQnaAsKFi9iBJbRDqYUJZXL6mbvmenX2FoQaXOa96iA2bAUS/O8N3r+J mbvMBOCMNN+VWIAR/FvscQivyH7onYZI7x/byBvrc70S6J3BH/BOVWOkXA5l7w2HZe8R Zb9YXe76rhnJVydiQx26cxKlVXdJsNo3ecrqUbCOzVxWVDm9q++Qe4Xh1JASl2w/oln5 n9LA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=Q6oF7CUvCruiMnn/Ypvpsq9sN3FAcj8NEqOe3Tevc5Y=; b=AETcnP5LUSmDUp578HcNx5VBGDNrR1XmRxAMX9kNc2T2vHKnIZiVFLpJtfZ1Vx77Ek row7SVKZZXHnP13R6Wxdd3mTLbNkgAk2uv29JZRbZfVNzRjAXn4iVRp3pwfzQysc05hZ Jm2UOpZ/M2Q7oYP0/qK99eC3VivoEwXgJB/rkxGIuIocFyi3nrTd58e3vqJaOpfRP9a3 0hgf1ymnyCOjJicAaawKwWv6Ha7jl2XyqnA6LJbQ/kXgIuWtjSe5YphOKCFbJbv3fOC0 mLf6t74jlMQ6KbqCwz3UxaEzY8HR4uPVrtI0mPl4VRaEwPObdm3Z9LxWEU0w/XHdD/ZX BEgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlZaBfEBpgqFVzjY7ArLdUNwOUYbwjvrW+BxecNUGp4ohALpYIBDHSdCHekyohPSrh8uS2NCE7WMHUG/zE4giB59/ClLw== X-Received: by 10.194.110.35 with SMTP id hx3mr43835968wjb.0.1450100796281; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 197sm16310566wmt.19.2015.12.14.05.46.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:46:35 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Xie, Huawei" Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3239973.oKiHPrAJjT@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1449763652-86292-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <20151214130931.GD29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 13:46:36 -0000 2015-12-14 13:38, Xie, Huawei: > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com] > > 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? > > > Thomas, there is no risk at all with this patch, and it will not affect performance. > I prefer to integrate this patch, so that we have a good looking vhost library. :). I'm not sure that "good looking" is enough. I'll wait for another opinion before merging, so we'll have 2 responsibles in case of failure :) > > 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