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 932D137B2 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:58:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:58:39 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="860368807" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:58:38 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx116.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.20) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:58:37 -0800 Received: from shsmsx152.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.52) by fmsmsx116.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:58:37 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.190]) by SHSMSX152.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.105]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:58:34 +0800 From: "Xie, Huawei" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] virtio: fix virtio_net_hdr desc pointing to the same buffer Thread-Index: AQHRNnDCXtURtGAUZESyzyv2F/Vglp7KdNpA//+DgACAAIaSwA== Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:58:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1449763652-86292-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <20151214130931.GD29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <3239973.oKiHPrAJjT@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3239973.oKiHPrAJjT@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 13:58:39 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 9:45 PM > To: Xie, Huawei > Cc: Yuanhan Liu; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] virtio: fix virtio_net_hdr desc > pointing to the same buffer >=20 > 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. :). >=20 > 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 :) Np. There is no issue either apply this patch or delay it to 2.3. >=20 > > > 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 >=20