From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>,
Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
Flavio Leitner <fbl@sysclose.org>,
"Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local.
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:06:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160405140633.GP3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1865360.UqzrcfEKI5@xps13>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:37:13AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-04-05 13:47, Yuanhan Liu:
> > So, I was considering to add vhost-user Tx delayed-copy (or zero copy)
> > support recently, which comes to yet another ABI violation, as we need
> > add a new field to virtio_memory_regions struct to do guest phys addr
> > to host phys addr translation. You may ask, however, that why do we need
> > expose virtio_memory_regions struct to users at all?
> >
> > You are right, we don't have to. And here is the thing: we exposed way
> > too many fields (or even structures) than necessary. Say, vhost_virtqueue
> > struct should NOT be exposed to user at all: application just need to
> > tell the right queue id to locate a specific queue, and that's all.
> > The structure should be defined in an internal header file. With that,
> > we could do any changes to it we want, without worrying about that we
> > may offense the painful ABI rules.
> >
> > Similar changes could be done to virtio_net struct as well, just exposing
> > very few fields that are necessary and moving all others to an internal
> > structure.
> >
> > Huawei then suggested a more radical yet much cleaner one: just exposing
> > a virtio_net handle to application, just like the way kernel exposes an
> > fd to user for locating a specific file. However, it's more than an ABI
> > change; it's also an API change: some fields are referenced by applications,
> > such as flags, virt_qp_nb. We could expose some new functions to access
> > them though.
> >
> > I'd vote for this one, as it sounds very clean to me. This would also
> > solve the block issue of this patch. Though it would break OVS, I'm thinking
> > that'd be okay, as OVS has dependence on DPDK version: what we need to
> > do is just to send few patches to OVS, and let it points to next release,
> > say DPDK v16.07. Flavio, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Thoughts/comments?
>
> Do you plan to send a deprecation notice to change API in 16.07?
Yes, I planned to, shortly. Before that, I'd ask for comments first.
--yliu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-19 6:32 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Thread safe rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 6:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 1/4] vhost: use SMP barriers instead of compiler ones Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 6:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX local Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 7:06 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-02-19 7:30 ` Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 8:10 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-04-05 5:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local Yuanhan Liu
2016-04-05 8:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-05 14:06 ` Yuanhan Liu [this message]
2016-04-06 4:14 ` Flavio Leitner
2016-04-06 4:54 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-02-19 6:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 3/4] vhost: avoid reordering of used->idx and last_used_idx updating Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 6:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 4/4] doc: add note about rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safety Ilya Maximets
2016-02-19 7:10 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-02-19 8:36 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-02-19 9:05 ` Ilya Maximets
2016-02-22 2:07 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-02-22 10:14 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-23 5:56 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-02-24 5:06 ` Ilya Maximets
2016-02-25 5:12 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-04-06 5:11 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] vhost-user public struct refactor (was Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] vhost: make buf vector for scatter RX) local Ilya Maximets
2016-04-06 5:38 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-04-06 6:00 Ilya Maximets
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160405140633.GP3080@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com \
--to=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fbl@sysclose.org \
--cc=huawei.xie@intel.com \
--cc=i.maximets@samsung.com \
--cc=s.dyasly@samsung.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).