From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BB05A44
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  4 Jan 2017 07:46:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2017 22:46:39 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,458,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="49861275"
Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202])
 by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2017 22:46:39 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.200) by
 fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:46:38 -0800
Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by
 FMSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.200) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:46:38 -0800
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.20]) by
 shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
 Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:46:34 +0800
From: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 "Liang, Cunming" <cunming.liang@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 3/7] net/virtio_user: move vhost user specific code
Thread-Index: AQHSZj7gAzpHvcH1S0miEa/LLXTQlKEnTbMAgACNTYA=
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 06:46:34 +0000
Message-ID: <ED26CBA2FAD1BF48A8719AEF02201E3651107348@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1483502366-140154-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1483502366-140154-4-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <20170104060238.GG21228@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170104060238.GG21228@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
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
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/7] net/virtio_user: move vhost user
	specific code
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 06:46:40 -0000

Hi Yuanhan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:03 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh; Liang, Cunming
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] net/virtio_user: move vhost user specific cod=
e
>=20
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:59:22AM +0000, Jianfeng Tan wrote:
> > To support vhost kernel as the backend of net_virtio_user in coming
> > patches, we move vhost_user specific structs and macros into
> > vhost_user.c, and only keep common definitions in vhost.h.
> >
> > Besides, remove VHOST_USER_MQ feature check.
>=20
> Again, I have to ask, why? You don't only remove the check, also, you
> removed this feature setting, which seems to break the MQ support?

I have answered it here:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053520.html

To be more clear, VHOST_USER_MQ is a not-well-defined macro: #define VHOST_=
USER_MQ (1ULL << VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES),
which is a feature bit in vhost user protocol.

According to QEMU/ docs/specs/vhost-user.txt, "If VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEA=
TURES has not been negotiated, the ring is initialized in an enabled state.=
 "

But our DPDK vhost library does not take care of this feature bit. Just mak=
e this as default: the ring is initialized in an disabled state. And our vi=
rtio_user with vhost-user does send VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE to enable e=
ach queue pair.

So I think it's not necessary to add it back.

How do you think?

Thanks,
Jianfeng

>=20
> 	--yliu