From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E865A8E59 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:22:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ho8so181229481pac.2 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:22:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=igel-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5QbAW7At+rk6t+z2ovU7A3jRq8rfNz+tRfU+1LqBDEs=; b=Cis+DXJlGvMDKVCsC63bopS8dyasYCKamspC/IjoABNaDpHpaQfIijbyniPML4gq25 6ggzJqnV4C/+AedcIi5AmLGHjWOq3fhU2iPAiqfLG+rkm+JOd/GJwfy+N3Mz32xWKRlC IGvPR1v2oEeG+6CX7DEr4Lh0rHj3VmTxLudqw/hwWbs+8XOjOwssH/zbk3E6/EVnWuJI P72EsFMfrqXieBzbSRsOPY4PN+6MapOyc4fYrTOA6ps8rvab8NdPRg496an46t61tT1b k9hcT9pjwhc6KwONHpBUtu8zT7aMornJ6MRNDTJTNZw9HMcHl67wZhf5lLwZJq6K1TcB Xxbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5QbAW7At+rk6t+z2ovU7A3jRq8rfNz+tRfU+1LqBDEs=; b=ivcviNxMNrjgBjk9FP3hz+TO1wnf1jEOYObNjg6oToKLYwX60NrPfo5oAZoRMpUdI0 fsLcsiT0oiBqg7f8eDZrmZF86tgeUwVMtki5SPCvhMUnySkbAKzzxo6g5bSF7st9Kk/9 cX1zcHwNvpj5lsp7Cb/ISD+dMq066E2bMiFrZrq8fClOtWQ2E156k93gvNpaxmoh5eKc gelGzyU+pSEccJn/UJEmEdyI847TiS65TezMMCLDRcr19v+WHtFNwzeJqQBTjloqbQ2v qhX4+2aWa6nEAuLEVMJduUX+2EtFY1O6IRUnBGpi9MCkPhFX+osGZ+RNwv6v4ZCSWrme CnRg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmOSc0qdMnC592u3ZgeZek5dplFS66qMaTo9IcXSfLEOB75ICILOkq6iBDOEW/6eZ9CX92L6jzFkb3a4oggIZu6IMIn6Q== X-Received: by 10.66.219.232 with SMTP id pr8mr40428154pac.104.1453166523190; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r5sm9159102pap.7.2016.01.18.17.22.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:22:02 -0800 (PST) To: "Tan, Jianfeng" , dev@dpdk.org References: <1453108389-21006-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <569CE4E6.70206@intel.com> From: Tetsuya Mukawa X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <569D8FBA.6050402@igel.co.jp> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:22:02 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569CE4E6.70206@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci access method 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:22:04 -0000 On 2016/01/18 22:13, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > Hi Tetsuya, > > On 1/18/2016 5:13 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >> The patches abstract pci access method of virtio-net PMD. >> The patch should be on Yuanhan's below patch series. >> - [PATCH v4 0/8] virtio 1.0 enabling for virtio pmd driver >> >> >> Tetsuya Mukawa (3): >> virtio: Change the parameter order of io_write8/16/32() >> virtio: move rte_eal_pci_unmap_device() to virtio_pci.c >> virtio: Add a new layer to abstract pci access method >> >> drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c | 4 +- >> drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 468 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h | 33 ++- >> 3 files changed, 369 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) >> > > Now I believe we will become more clear about the difference of our > two implementations. > > I was planning to just implement another struct virtio_pci_ops because > it's going the long way round for my implementation to translate > virtio_pci_ops to ioport/pci configuration space rd/wr then back to > sendmsg/ioctl. And in my implementation, there's no need to > differentiate legacy/modern device. > > As I understand, your implementation does not need another > implementation of struct virtio_pci_ops, but you need different > implementation in lower layer as this patch show. You want to support > both legacy/modern device, right? Thanks for comments. Yes, I want to support both legacy and modern virtio devices. I will rebase my container patches on this abstraction, then submit it again. Thanks, Tetsuya